Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ULLAPOOL HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

British Leyland Bathgate

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance he is making available to the area of employment covered by British Leyland, Bathgate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alan Stewart): The Bathgate travel-to-work area is a development area, and assistance to industry there is at the highest available levels. Good progress is being made in giving effect to the special programme of measures recommended in 1984 by the Bathgate working party.

Mr. Dalyell: How is good progress defined? What new money and new initiatives are available?

Mr. Stewart: The Scottish Development Agency has recently committed £7 million to the Bathgate area. That involves environmental improvements, business development and better communications through the new passenger rail link between Bathgate and Edinburgh, which was opened by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 24 March. That is a sign of our commitment to the area.

Mr. Ewing: We saw the Secretary of State with his green flag waving the train away from Bathgate, just as during the past six years we have seen the Conservative Government wave away industry and employment from the Bathgate area. Does the Under-Secretary understand that the best thing that could happen to Bathgate, the entire Lothian region, Central region, Fife, Strathclyde and all the regions would be for the people of Scotland to vote in large numbers for Labour candidates next Thursday and get rid of every last vestige of Conservative administration, which has done so much damage to Bathgate and the Scottish economy?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friends and I were wearily aware that we would hear that speech at some time during this week. A feature of the past six years is that the Labour party has waved away reality, the ability to face the facts and the ability to recognise the industrial successes that are increasingly obvious throughout Scotland.

AIDS

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is being done in Scotland to control the spread of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): In the blood transfusion service we are screening all blood donations and are heat treating blood products needed by haemophiliacs. We are supporting epidemiological research, providing testing facilities, promoting a press publication campaign to advise people about the disease and what can be done to avoid infection.

Mr. McKelvey: Nevertheless, the Minister must be seriously worried about the spread of the AIDS virus among heroin addicts, especially in Edinburgh, and more recently, in Dundee. The habit of intravenous injections is creating the problem. Will the Minister seriously consider making brand new needles more readily available in the rest of Scotland so that we may stem the flow of AIDS?

Mr. MacKay: I am afraid that there is no guarantee that making needles available to drug abusers would prevent drug misusers from sharing the needles in an even wider circle. There is evidence from some drug misusers that they would do that. My Department's chief medical officer has appointed a committee of experts to advise on this aspect and on other methods of controlling the spread of infection among drug misusers. However, the message is simple and clear: do not misuse drugs.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to control drugs and the spread of AIDS would be to encourage more self-discipline and higher moral standards among the population at large? Is he surprised that he has not heard more from the Churches on this subject?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. AIDS is a totally self-inflicted illness, and it is so much more morally reprehensible when it is inflicted on children. It is wrong that some people are inflicting AIDS on their unborn children—[Interruption.] I agree with hon. Members that this is serious. It is a moral question, which comes down to people reviewing their living habits.

Mr. Maxton: That is a most remarkable statement and a major condemnation of large numbers of people who just happen to have a life style different from that of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Will he ensure that the committee of investigation reconsiders the use of clean needles by drug users? If the Minister is so sure, will he say today that he will provide the Greater Glasgow health board with sufficient funds to ensure that there is no threat whatever to the Ruchill laboratory, which does the testing for the disease?

Mr. MacKay: I made it quite clear in my initial answer that the committee of experts is considering the matter. I shall take advice from it. I find it quite amazing that the hon. Member has just condemned me for condemning certain life styles. Does that mean that he condones drug abuse?

Strathclyde (Manufacturing Industry)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet Strathclyde regional council to discuss the prospects for manufacturing industry.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to meet Strathclyde regional council specifically to discuss this issue.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware—everybody else is—that there has been a drastic decline in manufacturing industry since the Government took office in 1979? Is he also aware that 57,000 people in Strathclyde region have been unemployed for two years or more and that there is 27 per cent. unemployment in the region? Will he do something drastic to get people back to work and give them what they are entitled to—the right to work and the right to live?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman must realise that manufacturing output in Scotland rose by 5·75 per cent. to the third quarter of 1985. Those are the most recent figures available. Opposition Members should recognise that manufacturing productivity in Scotland rose by more than 8 per cent. in 1984 and 6·8 per cent. to the third quarter of 1985. Both those figures are higher than the United Kingdom average. It is on the basis of such achievement that we can look forward to competitive and successful manufacturing industry in Scotland.

Mr. Fletcher: As low-cost energy is vital to manufacturing industry, will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate the South of Scotland Electricity Board on its excellent safety record at AGR power stations in Strathclyde and on completing the AGR at Torness on time and on budget?

Mr. Stewart: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. All hon. Members will recognise the outstanding safety record of the nuclear energy industry in Scotland. It is therefore astonishing that the Scottish Labour party is committed to closing Hunterston and refusing to open Torness. I notice that the Scottish Trades Union Congress, at least, had rather more sense than that at its recent congress.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the implications of the figures that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) is that, despite, and perhaps because of, the increase in productivity, the Government have taken out the benefits for themselves rather than allow them to help employment in Scotland? Is he aware that the implication of his figures is a further reduction in employment in manufacturing? Does he not intend to do anything about unemployment?

Mr. Stewart: The implication of the figures that I gave is that Scottish manufacturing industry is becoming more productive and therefore more competitive. That is the only basis on which a secure future can be built. I must emphasise that the total number of jobs in Scotland has been rising steadily. It is true that in Scotland, as throughout the industrial world, most of those jobs are coming in expanding service industries.

Mr. Henderson: As many of the hon. Members who represent Strathclyde are Labour Members, was my hon. Friend not surprised that none of them came forward when the Ministry of Defence announced the Harland and Wolff

order, one third of the value of which is to be spent in Strathclyde? Is that not an excellent example of how employment in that area is being helped?

Mr. Stewart: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that that order was a tribute to the design excellence of the Yarrow yard, which was involved with Harland and Wolff in that contract.

Mr. Ewing: I would have thought that the Minister would be more concerned about Tory party policy, which will cost his councillors dearly at the elections next Thursday and will cost him dearly at the general election. When it comes to the nuclear industry, does the Minister not understand that there is debate in the country about the safety and future of nuclear energy? He seems to be the only person who is deaf to that debate. The best thing that he can do, without listening to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to prompt him in his reply, is to open his ears and listen to the debate on people's concern about the future of the nuclear industry.

Mr. Stewart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an absurd debate taking place within the Labour party on that issue. I suggest that he is doing nobody any good by failing to dissociate himself from the totally absurd statements that have been made about the real role of the nuclear energy industry in Scotland. It is estimated that Labour party policy towards that industry in Scotland would result in an increase of around 25 per cent. in electricity prices.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to all concerned if we stuck to the question.

Unemployment (West of Scotland)

Mr. MacKenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for reducing the number of people unemployed in the west of Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The Government's strategy is keeping inflation down, stimulating enterprise and restoring competitiveness to industry. This is the best means of improving employment prospects in the west of Scotland. In addition, the full range of the Manpower Services Commission's special employment and training measures is available in the west of Scotland as elsewhere.

Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that we have been hearing that answer for the past seven years? If he cannot change his policy, will he ask somebody in the office to change the words in the answer? We keep hearing from the Prime Minister and others about the number of new jobs being created throughout the country. All that we want to know is whether we in the Glasgow travel-to-work-area may have a wee shot at getting some of them too.

Mr. Rifkind: Over the past two and a half years there has been a net increase of 27,00 in the number of people employed in Scotland. Therefore, it would be right for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to acknowledge that the total number of those employed in Scotland over the past couple of years has been rising, not falling.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in some non-assisted areas in the west of Scotland there are pockets of high male unemployment?


Will he give an assurance that in such towns as Annan the Scottish Development Agency has the initiative to build advance factories and has enough resources to promote development in those circumstances?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend raises a fair point. Clearly, although significant parts of Scotland benefit from regional assistance, there are other localities, such as the kind to which my hon. Friend referred, which do not come within those regions. It is part of the responsibility of the Scottish Development Agency to take account of the needs, not just of those areas with regional status, but of any part of Scotland which can benefit from the facilities that it provides.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the Highlands and Islands Development Board had more money it could create more long-term jobs at a lower cost than keeping people on the dole? Will he speak to his reactionary accountant friends in the Treasury about that.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Highlands and Islands Development Board already receives substantial resources, which are available for the benefit of the Highlands. The suggestion that one can somehow cure unemployment simply by pumping more resources into public expenditure may be a view held by the hon Gentleman, but it is not a view which even his party believes can solve the problem of unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he worst thing that Scots can do is to continue to talk down their country? Will he take this opportunity of reminding the Opposition of the recent optimistic business survey and of the hundreds of jobs which have come to my constituency so far this year, thanks to the Government's encouragement? Does he further agree that if the Labour party had its way and got rid of the nuclear deterrent, thousands of jobs in the west of Scotland would be destroyed?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in saying that defence-related employment provides jobs for many tens of thousands of people in Scotland. Undoubtedly those jobs would be jeopardised if ever Labour policy were to be implemented. Indeed, whenever one is in a locality where there are either defence or nuclear-related employment prospects, one finds that sometimes that has an educational effect even on the local Labour party. One has only to look at the views of the Caithness Labour party on nuclear energy to see proof of that point.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Is the Secretary of State aware that British Oxygen recently announced 100 new jobs in my constituency? Is he further aware that in the town centre of Cumbernauld, 4,000 people queued to apply for those jobs? Does he understand that that was a queue of real people, not just a creation of Saatchi and Saatchi? What positive steps will he take to provide employment in Cumbernauld, which is faced with such a situation, where 4,000 people queue for 100 jobs?

Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that Cumbernauld has been the recipient of several announcements bringing new jobs there over the past few months. For example, Isola will bring between 100 and 200 jobs to Cumbernauld. The hon.

Gentleman should acknowledge that it is the work of the Government, both directly and through the Scottish Development Agency, which has helped to persuade such companies either to put new investment in Cumbernauld or to increase investment that they already have there.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is the Secretary of State aware that if Edinburgh's multicultural centre closes, thanks to the maladministration of the Scottish Office, the employees will be forced to go to the west, thereby forcing up—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would say something about the west of Scotland.

Mr. Foulkes: I shall say something about the west of Scotland, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Douglas.

Mr. Douglas: While addressing the issue of the west of Scotland, the Secretary of State gave statistics for Scotland as a whole for the increase in the numbers employed. How many of those jobs are in oil-related activities? Does he expect that level of activity to persist in the west of Scotland and in Scotland as a whole, in view of the decline in the oil price?

Mr. Rifkind: In Scotland as a whole, about 60,000 jobs have been provided as a result of oil-related activities. It is impossible to predict with any certainty what the effect will be of the recent fall in oil prices. One knows that certain oil companies are reconsidering their investment decisions. I hope that, in coming to a view on those matters, they will take into account the likely development in the oil price, not over the next six or 12 months, but over the next 10, 15 or 20 years. That is the likely length of any investment that they may contemplate. If they use that sensible time scale, there is a powerful case for substantial investment in future.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Foulkes.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Secretary of State recall that I wrote to him pointing out that unemployment in Cumnock and Doon Valley is the second highest in the country, not just in the west of Scotland, and that it is due principally to the loss of 3,000 jobs in the mining industry which, in Cumnock and Doon Valley, is the equivalent of the closure of Ravenscraig in Lanarkshire? Will the Secretary of State say exactly what the Government will do about that? In particular, will he support the proposals in the Coopers and Lybrand report and make the necessary resources available?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are considering various ideas and proposals. Naturally, one is concerned about the high unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He will be aware that regional assistance is available, given the nature of the unemployment level. We shall also be prepared to look at any other sensible and constructive ways in which those problems can be ameliorated. However, I cannot suggest, nor do I think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to suggest, that somehow there is a magic formula that will solve the problem in the way which, theoretically, we would all like to see.

Maternity Services (Greater Glasgow)

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the provision of maternity services in the Greater Glasgow health board area.

Mr. John MacKay: Glasgow health board is currently reviewing its future plans for maternity services, including its earlier proposal to close the maternity unit at the Stobhill general hospital. Any such proposal would require the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Hirst: While I accept that in Glasgow there is over-provision of maternity beds, may I remind my hon. Friend of the concern among my constituents about the future of maternity services in their area, although they are greatly encouraged by talk of a new maternity unit for the north and north-east of Glasgow? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is an excellent green field site at Stobhill hospital where such a new unit could be sited? Can he hold out any prospect that that unit may come to Stobhill?

Mr. MacKay: As my hon. Friend knows, the board has considered a number of responses received as a result of the consultative exercise, including his comments and observations. A final decision must be set in the context of the review of maternity services for the whole of the Greater Glasgow area, which is being undertaken by the board's general manager. One of the options may well be to build a new unit on a green field site at Stobhill, but that matter is principally for the board. If it decides to opt for closure, it will then have to come to me and my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Maxton: Why does the Minister not admit that the reason why the Greater Glasgow health board, is threatening Stobhill or any other hospital in Glasgow is simply that he has failed to provide proper financing for the Greater Glasgow health board, as this year he has left it with a minimum £6 million deficit which it must find? Will he come clean and give the Greater Glasgow health board the finance that it needs?

Mr. MacKay: The Greater Glasgow health board is the best funded health board in Scotland. If it were to receive more resources, it would be at the expense of other Scottish health boards. Moreover, the simple fact is that there are more available staffed maternity beds in Greater Glasgow than are needed, even on the busiest day. It must make sense, even to the hon. Gentleman, that the Greater Glasgow health board should make the best use of its resources, and that does not mean keeping staffed beds which it knows will never be used.

Construction Industry

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase employment in the Scottish construction industry.

Mr. Rifkind: I am confident that the best prospects for increasing employment in the construction industry lie in the continuation of this Government's policies of reducing inflation and creating real economic growth. In addition, public expenditure which will benefit the construction industry in Scotland will be higher this year than in previous years.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Secretary of State aware that since his Government took office there has been a drop in

employment in the construction industry of 26·2 per cent. year on year, and that the number inexorably falls? Is he further aware that local authorities, especially regional councils, are having to watch our fundament and roads declining and becoming inadequate to support the industry that we seek to promote because of the stringent curbs on their capital expenditure? What will the Government do about that? The measure lies in their hands.

Mr. Rifkind: It is difficult to believe that the hon. Gentleman is a Member for a Highland constituency when he implies that during the past few years contruction on road development has been poor or inadequate. He need only travel on the A9 and compare his journey with a similar one a few years ago to find out how absurd that allegation is. He will also be aware of the proposal to build a bridge across the Dornoch firth in his constituency, and he might have taken that into account before making those rather silly remarks.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there would be a great deal more work for the construction industry if many local authorities, especially Labour ones, would release more of their land banks to developers for houses and buildings? In that way many people would be employed directly in the construction industry.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Certain authorities have tended to hold on to land within their locality unnecessarily, and clearly that can be a needless curb on useful development for the construction industry.

Unemployment (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

Dr. Godman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he proposes to take to deal with the social problems arising from unemployment in the Greenock and Port Glasgow parliamentary constituency.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The Government's policies are to build a strong competitive economy to tackle directly the root causes of unemployment. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will benefit from the expansion of the special employment measures announced in the Budget and from the Inverclyde initiative funded by the Government through the Scottish Development Agency. Indeed, £4 million has already been committed to an initial programme, with more to follow as suitable projects come forward.

Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that unemployment will worsen, especially in Port Glasgow, if Ferguson-Ailsa is not awarded the contract for the fisheries protection vessel to replace the Norna? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recommendation of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which is contained in its report on the fisheries protection service, to the effect that that vessel should be built in Scotland? Will he give an assurance that the order will go to a Scottish yard, and more particularly, to Ferguson-Ailsa?

Mr. Stewart: I am fully aware of the importance of orders for Ferguson-Ailsa. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that during the debate on shipbuilding on Monday. Six firms were asked to tender for the fisheries protection vessel. The tenders are currently being evaluated. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that is a technical process that will take some time.

Mr. Buchan: Does the Minister realise that the problems facing the lower part of Renfrewshire are compounded by three major events that have occurred largely because of the Government's inadequacy? I refer to the collapse of Linwood, the collapse of the shipbuilding industry and the collapse of the textile industry. They are all the result of the Government's failures. When will the Minister tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop his arrant nonsense about tax relief for the rich somehow giving employment to the poor? When will he take action, as he can do in the case of the fisheries protection vessel, and give some heart to an area that his Government have thoroughly devastated?

Mr. Stewart: As an hon. Member who also represents part of Renfrew district, I can say that the hon. Gentleman has uttered a lot of nonsense, even by his standards. I know that he could not be at the meeting that the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) and I had with Renfrew district council on the general position, but the consultant's report on a possible initiative for the district is being considered at a meeting tomorrow. I hope that that will be followed by positive initiatives. We are certainly committed to the development of Renfrew district. In my part of Renfrew district we have recently seen the announcement of 180 new jobs at Fine Fare and the expansion of English Sewing at Neilston in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman should portray a more balanced picture.

Scottish Motor Trade Association Ltd.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the correspondence he has received recently from the Scottish Motor Trade Association Ltd. on matters of consumer interest.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will be replying shortly.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister must be aware that recent figures show that it is 18p more expensive to buy petrol in Scotland than it is to buy it in some parts of England. Did he see the recent STV programme which showed that there was a gross difference of between 40p and 50p per gallon between the price of petrol in parts of Scotland and England? As the Scottish Motor Association has written to me saying that it does not accept the Government's policy that market forces will resolve the problem of the consumer being exploited, what does the Minister intend to do so that the consumer can be protected from the exploitation of oil companies?

Mr. Stewart: I read the recent article in the Petroleum Times. As the hon. Gentleman may know, that journal regularly publishes a report on local prices. The article showed that the average price for four star petrol was 177·7p in Edinburgh and 177·3p in London. I understand that the edition coming out later this week will show further reductions. The areas of greatest demand inevitably experience the greatest competition, and that is reflected in a relatively speedy reduction in prices. It is clear that that process invariably takes longer in less populated areas, where competition is not at the same level. The figures do not substantiate the hon. Gentleman's generalisation.

Sir Hector Monro: Has my hon. Friend had a discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the changed date for the vehicle registration letter next year? Is he aware that almost every motoring association in Scotland and motor dealer has written to say that the change to October is wrong and will have a serious and detrimental effect, not only on the sale of motor cars, but on the secondhand value that the public would expect? Will my hon. Friend hold discussions on this matter, because at present everything is being done purely for the benefit of the DVLC in Swansea?

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport gave a written answer on 28 April which stated that on 24 April he told the Motor Agents Association that he would be prepared to consider an alternative if the weight of opinion in the motor industry as a whole changed, and provided it was acceptable to the police. If that is not the case, the change will go ahead as planned in October 1987.

Mr. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anger in Scotland about high petrol prices? Is he aware also that the Director General of Fair Trading has stated that one problem may be that too few petrol forecourts are owned by independents and too many are owned by big combines? In those circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to instruct the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to conduct an inquiry into the matter?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the MMC prepared a report on the industry in 1979. The OFT conducts an annual review of the petrol retail industry. I have no doubt that, in the course of that review, it will pay special attention to the degree of competition.

Mr. Ewing: I urge the hon. Gentleman not to be complacent about this matter, because there is serious disquiet not only in Scotland but in other parts of Great Britain. Evidence is emerging that the oil companies, the suppliers, are selecting certain areas in Great Britain to subsidise at a much higher level than other areas, especially in Scotland. There is clear evidence that there is a difference of about 50p a gallon in the price of petrol in one area compared with another. That evidence has been put forward by the Scottish Motor Trade Association. Based on the hon. Gentleman's figures, I can produce evidence showing that there is an 18p a gallon difference between the price in Edinburgh and the price in parts of my constituency.

Mr. Stewart: Prices vary considerably. I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly where the biggest price differential occurs, according to the figures that are available. The price is as low as 154.7p in south Wales and as high as 205p in London. That does not suggest any bias against Scotland.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in the Highlands and Islands there have been persisent problems of differential regarding petrol pices? Car and haulage travel there is not a luxury but an absolute necessity to the whole of the economy because of the way of life. The Highlands and Islands are suffering badly, as I know the hon. Gentleman appreciates, through falling oil prices following the contraction of the North sea exploration market. Will we see some advantage from falling oil prices, such as cheaper costs of derv, haulage


costs and prices at the petrol pumps? At the moment we are seeing nothing. We are getting the worst of both worlds.

Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are very conscious of the price variations. We have vigorously reminded the oil companies of the need to ensure that rural areas, such as the Highlands, derive adequate benefit from lower oil prices.

Scottish Development Agency

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the total expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency since its inception.

Mr. Rifkind: The Scottish Development Agency has spent a total of over £940 million in the period since it was formed in 1975 up to 31 March 1986.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say what the agency has spent, a year on average, under the Government and how it compares with the average spent each year under the Labour Government?

Mr. Rifkind: The average annual spend of the SDA under the present Government is £109 million, against a figure of £44 million under the previous Government.

Mr. Millan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity to correct the impression, which seems to be prevalent in many parts of Scotland, that other worthwhile projects are being abandoned because of expenditure on the Glasgow garden festival? Is it not true that the SDA's allocation is not adequate to enable it to take up all the worthwhile projects put to it? That problem has nothing to do with the festival. An increased allocation is needed for the SDA.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is half right and half wrong. He is correct in that the SDA has emphasised that the garden festival is in no way interfering with its allocation of expenditure. The SDA has expressed that view more than once. This year the agency will be able to spend more than £136 million, which is more than in any previous year.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that a substantial part of the vast sums which the SDA has been authorised to spend have been spent in the Dundee area? Is he aware that one of my constituents, who runs a large timber, haulage and carpentry business, recently advertised twice in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser for joiners but was unable to get a single applicant?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the remit of the Scottish Development Agency extends throughout Scotland and includes Dundee and rural areas, both in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.

Mr. Home Robertson: Why have the Government rejected the call by COSLA and the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs for an SDA rural development fund? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the urgent need for the development of jobs and services in rural areas in Scotland? As the Tory Government evidently know little and care less about the rural areas in Scotland, I take this opportunity to give the Secretary of State a copy of Labour's new charter for rural areas.

Mr. Rifkind: We did not accept the proposal for a rural fund for the simple reason that we already spend in Scottish rural areas over 10 times more than the size of the proposed rural fund. Frankly, although it is easy to talk in terms of funds, the resources available to the farming community and those elsewhere in the rural areas are much more important. The hon. Gentleman should be the first to appreciate how well farmers do as a result of the Government's decisions.

Sir Russell Johnston: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman essentially the same question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) about the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which he failed to answer. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us a clear yes or no? Is he, or is he not, in favour of expanding the activities of the state funding of enterprise through the SDA and the HIDB?

Mr. Rifkind: I have already pointed out that the SDA has received more funds under this Government than under their predecessors. The HIDB has also received substantial resources. The hon. Gentleman should draw his own conclusion from the facts.

Mr. Forth: Given my right hon. and learned Friend's confidence in the SDA's success, is he prepared to recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that we set up similar bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom, starting, I hope, with the west midlands? Is he prepared to recommend that resources similar to those given to the SDA are given to all such similar bodies, to give every region a fair crack of the whip?

Mr. Rifkind: The SDA's successful achievements have been recognised not simply by Scottish Members but by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan)—and other hon. Members. It is for Members representing other constituencies to put the views that they think appropriate.

Agriculture Industry

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to provide further financial relief for the livestock sector of the agriculture industry in Scotland.

Mr. MacKay: In the six months to the end of April, Scotland's 20,000 beef and sheep producers have received direct Government support in adverse weather aid and headage and variable premiums of over £95 million, compared to £72 million in the equivalent six months of 1984–85. A further £10 million in hill subsidies will be paid out by the end of June.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that from the Scottish borders, and indeed from the whole of the south of Scotland, reports are coming through that this year's lambings are substantially down on previous years because of the mortality rate of the lambs? Is he aware of that taking place in other parts of the country? Will he take steps to see that the people who are suffering these losses receive more support, bearing in mind the difficulties that they experienced last summer and the bad lambing conditions this year?

Mr. MacKay: The lambings this spring will be one of the factors taken into account in the autumn in the annual


review of farming in relation to HLCAs and the like. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this year HLCAs were increased by 14 per cent. on average and by no less than 22 per cent. on hill cows. The right time to review the livestock position for the year is at the annual review in the autumn.

Mr. Pollock: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the welcome news of the extension of the Highland and Islands Development Board boundaries into the Forres and Tomintoul areas of my constituency, livestock there will qualify for enhanced rates of payment of HLCAs? That will represent significant support for those hard-pressed sectors.

Mr. MacKay: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the extension of the boundary of the Highland and Islands Development Board's area into parts of his constituency will mean that the people there, whether they are farmers or small business men, will have available to them the same payments as are available in the rest of the board's area.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's contribution to the European development programme proposed for the islands of Scotland—which has a certain potential to help the livestock industry in the islands—will be new money?

Mr. MacKay: If my memory serves me right, on all these proposals, the current one for the Western Isles and the one proposed for other islands, 60 per cent. of the input comes from the Government and 40 per cent. from the European Community.

Mr. Holt: While my hon. Friend is looking at the possibility of extra money for Scotland, will he tell his right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture where Cleveland is, so that it can have some money?

Mr. MacKay: I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister accept that it would be intolerable if the Government were to use the House of Lords to introduce an amendment into the Agriculture Bill that would penalise Scottish tenant dairy farmers, on the same basis as has been done in England and Wales over milk quotas? Will he give an undertaking that any decision on that matter that affects livestock farmers in Scotland will be taken in this elected House of Commons?

Mr. MacKay: Although the hon. Gentleman is a farmer, I am not sure whether he understands the livestock and milk sector of the industry. If the Government do not take action on this front, tenants will remain in the position that they are at the moment, which is that they have no right to any money or compensation.

Mr. McQuarrie: Will my hon. Friend take account of the problems arising in the rural areas about the less-favoured area designation? In a considerable number of cases one farmer is designated as being in a less-favoured area for livestock while the next farmer is not. That causes considerable anxiety as well as problems for the farmer who does not happen to be in the less-favoured rural area.

Mr. MacKay: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's point. There is a well-rehearsed procedure for reviewing

the position of a farm where the farmer feels he ought to be in the less-favoured area and is not. If any of my hon. Friend's constituents feel so aggrieved, they should make the necessary application for a review.

GEAR Project

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider continuing the Glasgow eastern area renewal project in Glasgow for another three to five-year period beyond 31 March 1987 to enable it to complete the final one third of the job which it was set up to do.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The present phase of the project will come to an end in March 1987. Discussions are now under way on the future management arrangements for a continuing commitment to the east end of Glasgow after that date.

Mr. Marshall: As usual, the Minister has dodged the question. Is he not aware that unless this project is extended everything will go tragically wrong? Has he not been in the area recently to see for himself how much has still to be done and how far from completion the project is? Does he want to see much of the investment already made going to waste, or will he reconsider the position and agree to extend the project to enable it to be completed for the benefit of everyone involved, not least his own Government?

Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made several visits to the area in the past two or three years and I am well aware of the kind of work that has been done. He should not underestimate the gains that have been made so far in the area, or the achievements of GEAR since its launch in 1976, which have often been very considerable and clearly evident in the progress that has been made towards tackling the problems that exist in the east end of Glasgow. The project has lasted 10 years and it is right that now, at the end of 10 years, the project should be ended and that there should be an evaluation of its successes so that similar projects may be used in other parts of Scotland.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Allen Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the increase in numbers of unemployed persons in the Paisley travel-to-work area in the first quarter of 1986, compared with the first quarter of 1985.

Mr. Allan Stewart: On 9 January and 6 March 1986 the numbers of unemployed people claiming benefit in the Paisley, North parliamentary constituency—there is no Paisley travel-to-work area as such—were respectively 5,854 and 5,596. On 10 January and 14 March 1985 the corresponding figures were 5,695 and 5,571. The figures for March 1986 are not comparable with earlier figures because of the change in the compilation of the unemployment statistics announced on 19 February.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware of the real anger and dismay that is felt in the Paisley and Renfrew areas over the Government's failure to provide jobs since the closure of Talbot? Can he name a single major employer that he has attracted into the Renfrew district in the past five years? Will he speak to the Scottish Development Agency


and take along with him a map of west Scotland to show the agency where Renfrew and Paisley are, as the SDA does not appear to know?

Mr. Stewart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to ask his question. Unfortunately, he was not listening earlier during Question Time when I said that there would be a meeting tomorrow involving the SDA about a possible initiative for Renfrew. I also named earlier two companies in my part of Renfrew district which have expanded under the Government's policy. I know that the SDA is committed to ensuring that Renfrew district gets its share of the resources that are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Local Authority Services

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland in what sectors he has instituted prosecutions against local authorities in relation to failure to achieve a statutory defined level or standard of service or provision.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I do not entirely understand what the hon. Gentleman means by "sectors" in this context, but so far as I am aware no such prosecutions have been instructed recently.

Mr. Foulkes: I am surprised that there are no prosecutions, in view of the cuts that are taking place. The regional councils in a number of areas are failing to carry out their statutory duties for children, the disabled, the elderly and young offenders under the social work and education legislation. Will the Solicitor-General and his colleague, the Lord Advocate, have another look at this and decide whether some prosecutions could be instituted? Instead of instituting prosecutions against local authorities, should they not be instituted against the real villain, the man behind it all, the Secretary of State for Scotland?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In common with the rest of the House, I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's question. However, if there is a sector where he believes that prosecutions should be taken against local authorities, which was the basis of his original question, I hope that he will tell me where he believes abuses are taking place.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that it would assist decisions about prosecutions if local authorities were required to keep separately their expenditure on statutory duties as opposed to their expenditure on other matters? For example, Fife regional council has spent more per head on education than any other education authority in Scotland and it claims that it is short of money for desirable projects within its statutory responsibilities, yet it has spent a lot of money on other things, such as giving holiday meals to striking miners' families.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, all that I am asked to do is to look at those circumstances where prosecutions might be moved against local authorities. It might be that in certain circumstances authorities are in breach of the duties imposed on them by the House of Commons, but there is a clear distinction between that and having the opportunity

to mount a prosecution. However, if there are specific areas where that is necessary, I hope that they will be brought to my attention.

Mr. Ewing: In order to get some balance into the question and answer, instead of considering the possibility of prosecuting some local authorities, will the Solicitor-General consider an alternative form of treatment by holding up as an example of a good council the Angus district council, which is SNP-controlled, and puts the rents up and cuts public spending when it is told to do so by the Secretary of State? Indeed, it does everything that it is told to do by the Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland and has never been in any danger of falling foul of the law in order to defend its ratepayers.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With an eye to next Thursday, the hon. Gentleman has made his point well.

Mr. Bruce: Would Grampian regional council be open to prosecution, given that within Aberdeen 45 per cent. of eligible children can go to nursery school, whereas within Gordon district fewer than 5 per cent. can go to nursery school? Should not such a wide variation within the same local authority area lead to a prosecution for under-provision in part of the area for which the authority is responsible?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the hon. Gentleman feels that there is some failing there, that is a matter for local control and discretion. Again, I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman has his eye to rather than any particular prosecution which he seriously thinks I might mount.

Mr. Bill Walker: Are local authorities ever at risk from prosecution as a result of strikes by their employees?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: So far as I am aware, no.

Police Misconduct

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will instruct regional procurators fiscal to give more comprehensive replies to people who have formally submitted a complaint about criminal misconduct by the police.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not consider it necessary to give any such instruction. All persons who make a complaint of criminal conduct by a police officer are precognosced by the procurator fiscal. With the request to attend for precognition there is sent a note which explains in detail the procedures followed and the considerations taken into account in deciding whether criminal proceedings should be instituted.

Mr. Canavan: What advice would the Solicitor-General give to somebody who lodges such a complaint, has to resist considerable police pressure to withdraw the complaint and spends considerable time and effort obtaining legal advice to pursue the complaint, getting the names and addresses of witnesses and being cross-examined by a senior police officer and the procurator fiscal, only to receive a curt, two-sentence letter months later from the regional procurator fiscal saying that no action is to be taken? If the regional procurator fiscal cannot even be bothered to try to give an explanation of


why no action has been taken, is it any wonder that many people consider that it is almost a complete waste of time lodging a complaint against the police because the system is biased in favour of the establishment and against the complainant?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Anyone who makes a complaint against the police, as I have already said, is given a full explanation of the procedures that will be followed through and what might have happened if at the end of the day there are to be no proceedings. One reason, which the hon. Gentleman might appreciate, why that note is, as he describes it, curt, is that it might be that in the circumstances, as in other cases, the procurator fiscal has given a warning to the person involved. As the hon. Gentleman may well recall from a debate that we had some time ago in the Scottish Grand Committee, it was clearly his view and that of his hon. Friends that where a warning was to be given by a procurator fiscal it should not be widely divulged.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will list the subjects about which he has transferred questions for oral answer from himself to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the current Session of Parliament.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have transferred questions on legal aid; tape recording of police interviews; the reprimand of a sheriff; private legislation procedures; justice of the peace courts; fisheries offences; and statistics on drunk-driving and orders made under section 18(2) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

Mr. McKelvey: I am sure the House thinks that that is disgraceful. Does the Solicitor-General not realise that the Secretary of State has enough troubles in Scotland at the moment without the hon. and learned Gentleman passing the buck and transferring those questions? Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman not stand at the Dispatch Box, stop passing the buck and answer those questions himself?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Simply because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not entrusted those responsibilities to me.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: To whom should I address a question brought to my notice by a constituent in Yorkshire about the standard of service in a sheriff court in Scotland?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It depends on whether the right hon. Gentleman's complaint has to do with criminal proceedings or civil proceedings. If he would care to write to me, I shall make sure that if I cannot answer it myself I shall transfer it.

Firearms

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions for firearms offences have been instituted in the last convenient year; and how many alleged offenders held firearms certificates.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Five hundred and fifty four prosecutions in respect of offences involving

firearms took place in 1984. The provisional figure for 1985 is 555. Statistics relating to the number of those prosecuted who held firearms certificates are not held centrally.

Sir Hector Monro: Since the security of firearms is of first importance, does not the fact that my hon. and learned Friend does not keep statistics for those who hold firearms certificates show that additional pressure for the imposition of greater restrictions on those who hold firearms certificates may be misplaced?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I understand why my hon. Friend is concerned about this, and I may take the opportunity to discuss it with him further. All I can say at the moment is that I do not know the figures for offences by those who hold firearms certificates, but if my hon. Friend feels that there is a particular abuse, or that a particular identification is necessary in the classification of these offences, I shall certainly look at that.

Fraud

Mr. Hirst: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether the Crown Office follows any special procedures in prosecuting serious cases of fraud in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: In June 1984 a fraud unit, comprising both legal staff and precognition officers, was established in the Crown Office in coordination with the police to investigate and prepare major fraud cases referred to it by procurators fiscal. The unit, with direct access to Crown counsel, has brought about a concentration of effort on and expertise to such cases and already has a number of very successful prosecutions to its credit. It is the intention of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to reinforce it.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Bearing in mind the complexity of major fraud cases and the inevitable problems confronting juries in trying to assess the evidence, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it might be preferable to have a skilled assessor to assist the judge, rather than entrust this matter to a jury?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is a matter that was suggested by Lord Roskill. However, our experience in Scotland to date has not made me want to question the jury system for fraud trials. I have considerable sympathy with juries who have to sit through such trials for anything up to six or eight weeks. I am not aware of any major fraud cases in Scotland where it could be said, as a matter of objective assessment, that the jury had come to the wrong verdict.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Arising out of questions?

Mr. Maxton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. During the answer that he gave to me on question No. 2, concerning AIDS in Scotland, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) made the accusation that I was condoning a criminal offence, in that I was condoning drug misuse. That is a very serious accusation which I hope the hon. Member will take the opportunity to withdraw, because when he reads the answer that he gave me—or, rather, the answer that he gave to the


question put by the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson)—he will appreciate that he was not condemning drug misuse, he was condemning people who were at risk from AIDS.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is going into the question again. I am sure that the point has been well taken by the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Order. If the Minister made that accusation, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw it—but I did not hear that.

Mr. John MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall read carefully the record of what I said, but my recollection is that I did not suggest that the hon. Member was condoning illegal activities. I did suggest that he was condoning drug abuse. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I hope that the hon. Member will also read what he said, because I suspect that he went a great deal further than he intended.

Mr. Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has just compounded the felony by admitting that he had accused my hon. Friend of condoning drug misuse. In its widest possible sense, drug misuse is a criminal offence and the Minister ought to be man enough to withdraw. Perhaps we are expecting far too much of the Minister in expecting him to rise above his usual standards, but he has an obligation to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House at least to accept the standards of the House of Commons and to withdraw that very serious and scurrilous allegation.

Mr. Wallace: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), has the advantage of sitting beside his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland, perhaps the Solicitor-General could advise him whether there are any drug abuses that are not illegal. What he said appeared to imply that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) condones illegality.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with this matter. May I say that in the House of Commons very rough things are occasionally said in answer to questions. I am perfectly certain that if the Minister made an accusation against the honour of any Member, on whatever side of the House, he would wish to withdraw it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. John MacKay: I have made it quite clear that I shall check the record. If I said anything that I ought not to have said, I shall withdraw it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not had an opportunity to check the record, either. The best thing for the House to do in a situation like this, as the Minister has said that he will check the record—indeed, I shall read these exchanges carefully—is to do that and see what happens tomorrow.

Mr. Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the record is now to be checked, may we have an assurance that the record will remain as it was when the Minister made his allegations?

Hon. Members:: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker:: Order. [Interruption.] Order. That will be a matter for me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not make that accusation against me.

Mr. Maxton: I accept that the Minister may wish to check the record, but may I have his assurance that if he finds that what I have said is correct he will come to the House tomorrow afternoon and ask to withdraw his statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is what the Minister said.

Later—

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the statement and the exchanges on it. I reflected on the comments I made during points of order at the end of Scottish Question Time. I realise that what I said about the possible alteration of the record in relation to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may well be taken as a reflection on you, Mr. Speaker. Under no circumstances would I want that to remain on the record. I unreservedly withdraw my remarks and apologise for my intemperate comments.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his typically generous correction. I did not take his comments as a reflection on me. However, I am responsible for Hansard, and I would not allow anything like that to happen.

Soviet Nuclear Accident (British Citizens)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the evacuation of British subjects following the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union.
Following indications from countries bordering the Soviet Union, the Soviet authorities announced late on 28 April that there had been an accident at the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl. This was a full day after radioactivity had first been monitored in Scandinavia. The embassy in Moscow was in touch with the Soviet authorities early the next morning to seek information. The Soviet authorities were unwilling to give any details but assured our embassy that there was no cause for concern over the British citizens in Kiev and Minsk. In the absence of any authoritative information from the Soviet authorities, which sadly continues to be a feature of this crisis, the ambassador was instructed to seek the fullest possible details. He was only able to talk to the Soviet authorities this morning.
During the course of yesterday afternoon I took the decision, in the light of the continuing uncertainty and lack of authoritative information, that it would not be right for British citizens to visit the western Soviet Union unless absolutely necessary. As regards those already there, we requested the fullest co-operation of the Soviet authorities in assisting any who decided to leave to do so. The embassy was instructed to offer every help in this respect, including repatriation.
I reviewed the situation again this morning. Despite the inadequate information from the Soviet Union, it was evident, particularly from reports based on United States satellite observations and from Swedish scientific sources, that the situation at Chernobyl was such that it was necessary to advise British citizens in Kiev and Minsk to leave. We have also decided to extend to north-east Poland the advice already given to intending travellers to the western Soviet Union. We are in touch with the Polish Government to identify which areas they consider to be at risk.
Our embassy is in continuing contact with the Soviet authorities about the practical arrangements for evacuation. That will probably mean that the students from Kiev and Minsk should travel to Moscow for evacuation from Moscow. Our ambassador has been told that the Soviet authorities will be of assistance. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be seeing the Soviet ambassador this afternoon and impressing on him the need for the fullest practical co-operation.
There are still many unanswered questions. We urge the Soviet authorities to release the fullest possible information immediately. We have established an expert working group in order to monitor the situation on an hourly basis and advise Ministers on appropriate action.
The lesson of this incident is that the openness which Mr. Gorbachev has said is necessary in Soviet society must become a reality.

Mr. George Robertson: The Opposition welcome the swift action which has been taken to bring home the students and teachers in the areas of the Soviet Union affected by this undoubted catastrophe.
We thank those in the British embassy in Moscow, in the British Council and elsewhere who have acted so quickly. Will the Minister reassure us that the evacuated students and teachers will not have to bear additional cost as a result of this sudden departure? Given the cuts which have already been made in the past few years in the British Council's budget, will he ensure that it is recompensed for any additional costs resulting from this emergency, especially if a decision must regrettably be made about the tour of the Soviet Union by the London Festival ballet this weekend?
Have all the bureaucratic restrictions in the Soviet Union on travel and movement been lifted by the Soviet authorities? This is not a time for pretending to play it cool. Rather it is a time for urgent action.
On the wider issues, it is absurd and outrageous that at this late stage we know so little of this cataclysmic disaster. It is completely unacceptable for the Soviet Union's paranoid secrecy to continue to conceal from neighbouring countries the danger facing their peoples. Radioactivity does not respect the lines on any map or national frontiers, and there is a direct and urgent obligation on the Soviet Union and its new leadership to be frank and forthcoming about what is going on.
Can we be assured that the British Government have offered technical help, given the unique knowledge and experience that we have? When was it offered, and can we be assured that the Government will continue to press it? What are the Government doing about demanding better international standards for civil nuclear power and toughening the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency? Is not one lesson of this dreadful incident for both Britain and the Soviet Union that secrecy and civil nuclear power do not go together?

Mr. Eggar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about Foreign Office officials—I shall pass those remarks on—and about the active role that the British Council has played with regard to the students.
I am sure that the Soviet embassy will take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said about Soviet secrecy. I simply repeat what I said in my statement: that it would have been much easier had the Soviet Union been more open in the circumstances.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will repeat the assurance that was given this morning by our ambassador that we would be willing to give technical assistance if we were asked. We have not yet been asked. As for strengthening the IAEA rules, it is of course interesting that, when the rules were drafted, it was very much on the initiative of Soviet and British specialists working together. It is unfortunate that the Soviet Union has not at least conformed to the spirit of those rules.
I am told that the students in Minsk will travel on their revalidated air tickets from Moscow to London under arrangements that have been made by the British Council. We understand that those in Kiev, most of whom are there under the arrangement of Progressive Tours, are making similar arrangements for their return.
As for the hon. Gentleman's request for assurances about expenses that are incurred and the Festival ballet being cancelled, I am sure that he is aware that we are in


constant touch with the British Council and the company. As yet, no decision has been made to cancel the tour. We shall continue to co-operate.
I am grateful for the tone in which the hon. Gentleman opened his remarks.

Mr. David Maclean: On behalf of my constituents who have young people studying in Minsk, may I thank my hon. Friend for his exceptionally prompt action in getting people evacuated? Will he make it clear to the Soviets that we will not tolerate any hindrance when it comes to getting our students out of Minsk or Kiev to Moscow and thence to London? Have any plans been laid for medical tests of those who have been evacuated?

Mr. Eggar: I thank my hon. Friend. We have had assurances that no hindrance will be put in the way of those who wish to leave. We shall have to see how matters develop, but we have no reason to believe that any bureaucratic delays will be put in people's paths. We are arranging for students and others who are returning to London, immediately to undergo a full medical check at Oxford. We are also making arrangements to fly out monitoring equipment to Moscow, which will be operated by our embassy there so that we can keep an eye on radioactivity levels in Moscow.

Mr. David Alton: May I join the Minister in condemning the unnecessary time lag and secrecy? Will the survey of possible contamination that the students may have suffered be carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board and will they be monitored regularly? Has the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority offered any technical help to the Soviet Union to fight the fire? If not, why not?

Mr. Eggar: As for the survey of the health of those who return, what happens in future will depend on the examination that they will undergo at Oxford. We are considering that matter carefully. No offer has been made by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority directly, but we are making it quite clear to the Soviet authorities that, if a request is made, we will help as best we can.

Mr. David Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have several constituents who are visiting Kiev and Minsk, notably from Surrey university at Guildford? My hon. Friend says that arrangements are being made to evacuate them through Moscow as apparently, the Soviet authorities' normal rules require that all departures from Russia are through Moscow. Will my hon. Friend prevail on the Soviet authorities in this case, as all the trains and airlines from Kiev to Moscow are very heavily booked, to allow my constituents in Kiev and, if necessary, in Minsk to depart through Prague or Budapest instead, where they can get out much more quickly and with much less hassle and difficulty?

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the representations that my right hon. Friend had made on behalf of his constituents. Our latest information is that it is not possible to get places on the aeroplanes from Kiev to Moscow tonight, but we believe that places will be made available on the overnight train. Our embassy in Moscow is keeping close tabs on that and we shall certainly consider my right hon. Friend's argument should it be necessary.

Mr. Tony Benn: Although I welcome the Minister's statement about the efforts to safeguard British citizens, he will recognise that people who are contaminated could suffer very long-term effects from cancer. It is not infectious like for example, a plague. President Reagan, most generously and completely, has offered the full facilities of the United States to help the Soviet Union for, in a certain area of nuclear technology, there has always been close co-operation between the Americans, the British and the Russians, especially on nuclear safety.
Will the Government go further than indicating a readiness to help? Will they put at the disposal of the Soviet authorities the experts from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels plc, the National Radiological Protection Board and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which have great experience of handling matters of this kind? As this is a major international environmental catastrophe, can it be seen in that light rather than simply as an opportunity to attack secrecy, which I greatly regret, in the Soviet Union, as there have been accidents or near-accidents in Britain and a major effort to cover up what has happened. Such a disaster could happen in any nulcear power station in the world, including ones here.

Mr. Eggar:: The right hon. Gentleman is developing a considerable ability to miss the point. We will of course make assistance available to the Soviet Union when it is requested. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will reiterate that fact to the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon. The Soviets have already been informed by the Swedes and the Germans that they feel that we are the people who have the most likely expertise in this area because of our experience with graphite fires. Our people are standing by to be of assistance if the Soviet Union requests.

Mr. Michael Latham: When the Prime Minister meets the Soviet ambassador this afternoon, will she make it clear to him that, if this dreadful tragedy is to be properly sorted out to prevent such events in the future, it is essential that the Soviet Union gives all the scientific information properly and gives a great deal more information than it has so far chosen to give its own citizens?

Mr. Eggar: I am confident that my right hon. Friend will be making that point.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I thank my hon. Friend and his officials for their advice and assistance during the night to my constituent in Kiev and her parents. In the event of any obstruction to the evacuation, will he immediately acquaint the House with the fact? Our concern is with our constituents, but is it not the case that, despite the attitude of the Soviet authorities and what we may think of that attitude, our sympathy remains with the Ukrainians and other peoples who have been affected by this disaster?

Mr. Eggar: Of course we express a great deal of sympathy for the people who have been killed and for those who may die in the future as a result of this appalling incident. With regard to information to my right hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members who have been in touch with the office, we will continue, so far as we are able, to give an update directly to hon. Members


and to the families of those concerned. We do not anticipate any obstruction, but if there should be any I will inform the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that the Minister's statement was concerned with the evacuation of or assistance to British subjects, not with the general principle, which I know is of great concern? We must stick to the statement. Furthermore, we have a heavy day before us. I intend to give precedence to those hon. Members who were not called on the private notice question yesterday. In view of the business before the House, I can only allow the statement to continue for a further 10 minutes.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Minister arrange for those arriving from the Soviet Union to be thoroughly debriefed so that the greatest amount of information is gathered? Will he ensure that there is radiation measuring equipment, not only in Moscow but at all available locations in eastern Europe where it can be placed? Is this not a situation in which our reactor engineers should use all available channels open to them to contact directly their opposite numbers in the Soviet Union and make available all information on fighting fires in graphite-moderated reactors, whether it is asked for or not?

Mr. Eggar: First of all, of course I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be discussing the situation with the people when they return and we will get the maximum amount of information from those sources. I take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's point about radiological monitoring equipment. I will consider it further. As I said, we were able to get the equipment to Moscow quickly and we hope that it will be operating on Thursday evening or Friday. We will do what we can to make information and assistance available, but we must have the avenues opened up to us. It is not a case of our being deaf to them.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on taking such swift action to evacuate British citizens, wherever they may be in the Ukraine or Minsk. It is a tragedy, and it is with sorrow that I speak in the House, having been born in the Ukraine. A month ago, after 44 years' absence, I visited the very' area where the tragedy occurred. I am sorry to say that, unless the Soviet Union co-operates fully with the West to assist it in finding the cause, nothing much will be achieved. How can the Soviet Union ask for help on the one hand, but, on the other, withhold all the information that is required? I sincerely hope that our Government will put all necessary scientific—not political—pressure on the Soviet Union, and Mr. Gorbachev in particular, to ensure that such a tragedy never occurs again, not only in the Soviet Union but anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Eggar: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, particularly because he has such great personal experience of and personal feeling for the Ukraine. I agree with my hon. Friend. It is all very well to ask for a dialogue from us, but there has to be information coming from the Soviet Union. I can assure the House again that we shall give what assistance we can as soon as we see an avenue through which to give it.

Mr. Greville Janner: The Minister rightly said that he has issued warnings to British people visiting north Poland. Has he warned anyone else? Are

there any other preparations made for evacuation? What is the hon. Gentleman's information about the movement of the radioactive cloud? Where is it expected to move to and settle, and is it moving in this direction?

Mr. Eggar: The advice that I gave in my statement referred to north-east Poland rather than north Poland. One of the reasons why, this morning, we established a group of experts to advise us on an hourly basis as to exactly what our advice to British citizens should be, was that we needed to know, among other things, the direction of the wind, to make it clear where the danger was likely to be. At the present moment, there is no danger in this country. We are monitoring radioactivity levels, but there has been no increase above the normal levels.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is there any evidence that there was even a small-scale nuclear explosion, and even if the whole of one of the reactors were to burn out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Evacuation.") All right. Evacuation. There is great danger from the radiation which has come out of the plant. Can my hon. Friend tell the House, assuming that the whole reactor burnt out, how much radiation would be there, and how it would compare with the radiation from a nuclear bomb?

Mr. Speaker: That was very wide.

Mr. Eggar: I thank my hon. Friend for that creative question. In accordance with Mr. Speaker's wishes, I shall not comment in detail on his points.

Mr. Terry Lewis: The whole House and the country will appreciate the speed with which the Foreign Office and the embassy in Moscow have moved on the evacuation and advice to those with immediatly pending travel. May I take the Minister in another direction and remind him that this summer, many thousands of tourists, myself included, will hope to go to Minsk and Kiev? [HON MEMBERS: "Freebie."] When the yobboes on the Conservative Benches have settled down, I shall press on with my question on this serious subject. Will the situation be monitored? What advice will be given to people who are intending to travel in the medium and longer term?

Mr. Eggar: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the Foreign Office. I can assure him that we shall continue to monitor the situation not only in Minsk and Kiev, but in other areas of the western Soviet Union. We shall advise travellers accordingly. Again, our job would be made much easier if the Soviet Union made available more information.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Soviet ambassador that, as one of those who is going to the Soviet Union next month under the leadership of Lord Whitelaw, on the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation—[Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. I am sure that all of us would express real concern—

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Cancel the visit.

Mr. Warren: I do not think that this is at all funny. Many millions of Soviet people are now exposed to radiation, which we would not wish on any citizens in the world. I hope that that will be conveyed to the Soviet ambassador in the United Kingdom. During the discussion would it be possible to ask him if he would accept British charter aircraft to carry out the evacuation speedily, and


whether he would be so kind as to inform his Government that if they would only tell us all the grades of fallout from that plant, especially in view of the worry about the plutonium weapon-grade material which is produced there, we could probably render assistance to the Soviet people, which we are all eager to do?

Mr. Eggar: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last point. We anticipate that the evacuation from Moscow will take place with charter aircraft. We are considering what we can do direct into Kiev, should it not be possible to make bookings on normal transport in the near future.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I express a minority opinion? What purpose is served by the House of Commons, at this time of acute crisis, lecturing worried people, as the Soviet leadership must be, on secrecy? Will the Minister reflect that in 1957—this has now emerged under the 30-year rule—when there was a graphite fire at Windscale, his Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, decided not even to tell the Irish? As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said, are we not more likely to create the conditions for our experts to do something about it if we shut up about secrecy—that goes for the Minister's Front Bench as much as for mine—than if we lecture the Russians on secrecy? Now is the time for help, not hindrance.

Mr. Eggar: I must say to the hon. Gentleman that our primary concern must be for the safety of British citizens. If we do not have the information on which to advise them, how can we be expected to look after their safety?

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Department on the speedy and efficient way in which the matter has been carried out. Will he assure the House that he will ask the Prime Minister to express to the Soviet ambassador this afternoon the wholehearted contempt of the House for the way in which the Soviet Union has behaved towards its neighbours in not informing them of the exact position?

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the Soviet ambassador will take note of my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. David Winnick: If the Soviet authority took into its confidence not only the international community but its own people, would not one of the virtues be that it would dampen the rumours and speculations? Has the Minister seen the headlines in some newspapers, claiming that there are up to 2,000 victims? Would it not be useful if the Russian ambassador were told that while the British people have every possible sympathy with the Russian people over what has happened, they find it extremely difficult to understand—without using the same words as the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)—why the full truth is not being told?

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the Soviet embassy will take that point when it reads the Official Report of our discussions this afternoon.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is not the most significant aspect of this tragic affair the woeful lack of information coming from the Soviet Union? Would my

hon. Friend be surprised if some people with an insight into the affairs of the Soviet Union in the light of these events were to feel that there has been a woeful disregard for life there?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On behalf of the Munro family in my constituency, whose daughter Catriona was one of the student party at Minsk, may I thank the Minister, the private office and the representatives of the Government in the Soviet Union for the first-class help and attention which they gave the families? They have done much to alleviate the obvious concern and distress of the family at home in the Highlands of Scotland. Regarding the travel arrangements, is it intended that the party at Minsk will in all likelihood fly from Moscow tomorrow and arrive at Heathrow tomorrow evening?

Mr. Eggar:: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and I shall see that they are passed on. We understand that on present schedule the party at Minsk is due to arrive at Heathrow tomorrow evening.

Mr. Peter Viggers: As this is a world problem, will the Government raise through the United Nations the need for the Soviet Union to give the fullest information to the United Nations' affiliate—the International Atomic Energy Agency?

Mr. Eggar: That is a point that we shall want to consider. Our immediate concern is to get the necessary information for us to advise our citizens appropriately.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Reverting to an earlier answer about medical tests on students and other evacuees returning in the near future—which I welcome—will the Minister also give an assurance that those who, for one reason or another, are delayed for several weeks, and do not return to the United Kingdom for one or even two months will receive the same medical screening and assistance when they return? Will he persuade his hon. Friends that some of our medical expertise should be issued to the Ukraine Supreme Soviet and the other local hospitals in the affected areas?

Mr. Eggar: We are keeping medical screening under constant review. Obviously, what we do in future will depend greatly on the results of the screening of the first groups to return. Obviously, if medical assistance is requested, we shall make it available.

Mr. Neil Thorne: In facilitating the evacuation of British personnel, can my hon. Friend comment on the effectiveness of the Soviet civil defence and civil defence and protection procedures and say whether they are in any way inhibited by any bogus nuclear-free zone?

Mr. Eggar: I am afraid that I do not have information on that area.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would rather take the point of order after the application under Standing Order No. 10, as there is also another point of order.

Soviet Nuclear Accident

Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that merits urgent consideration, namely,
the impact of the Soviet nuclear accident on the future of the British nuclear power programme.
As I was unable to notify you before 12 o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I must draw your attention to certain matters which have come to my notice since that deadline. First, a forecast of 20,000 cancer deaths has been made by Greenpeace. Secondly, there has been an explosion in New Delhi in a heavy water factory for the Indian nuclear industry. Thirdly, restrictions have been placed on water, food and milk consumption in neighbouring countries. Fourthly, Representative Edward Markey, an American congressman, has said, properly, that there is a 45 per cent. risk of such an accident occurring in the United States during the next 20 years.
The matter cannot be contained simply by rebuking the Soviet Union for its secrecy, although I greatly regret that it has not given more information. It may not know what has happened; that is always a possibility. However, it is clear that there has been a melt-down and a fire, with added hazard. It is possible that neighbouring reactors will be affected by the fire and that rivers may be contaminated. This is a major international environmental disaster, comparable in the civil sphere to what happened in Hiroshima when the first bomb exploded.
I am asking that we now have an opportunity to discuss fully the whole nature of the problem. Many British people, not only those with relatives in Russia but those who live near our nuclear power stations, want an opportunity to have the matter fully discussed. We should discuss how far it is true that Britain has been candid about its nuclear industry. For eight years I had responsibility as

a Minister, and on many occasions information was not made available to me. This is a matter—[Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen. I am talking about our nuclear power programme. When there was a disaster at Kyshtym in 1958, it was known to the atomic energy authority but was not disclosed for 15 years to British Ministers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, when there was a fire at Windscale it was not disclosed to the Irish, who were deeply concerned. When there were leaks at—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only three minutes in which to speak, and he has used up two and a half of them.

Mr. Benn: The point is that nothing could be more misleading than for responsible Ministers to give the impression that such an accident could not happen here. It could. Openness is one thing, and everyone should want it, but the risk of a tragedy is another. I urge the House to take seriously the need for a debate tomorrow on the whole question of nuclear safety in Britain as well as in other countries.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impact of the Soviet nuclear accident on the future of the British nuclear power programme.
I in no way under-estimate the importance of what the right hon. Gentleman has put to the House and nor do hon. Members, but, as he knows, the only decision I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business already set down for today or tomorrow.
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Channel Tunnel Bill

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order on the Channel Tunnel Bill, of which I have given you prior notice.
The Government, through the Department of Transport, have recently circulated to Kent district councils on the consultative committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), Minister of State, Department of Transport, a public document entitled, "Channel Tunnel Timetable". That document, of which I have sent you a copy, purports to set out the future parliamentary timetable of the Channel Tunnel Bill in meticulous detail and in a way that has certainly not been disclosed to the House. In particular, that so-called timetable gives several precise dates of legislative events and stages in the House and the other place. For example, it states that the Select Committee will hold its proceedings from Tuesday 17 June until 24 July.
I submit that that is not just a misguided piece of parliamentary clairvoyance, but a display of Government arrogance—it will be interpreted as such—that has already been greeted with consternation in Kent and by Members of Parliament for constituencies there.
I think that the whole House is aware that there is already concern in Kent at the way in which some of the Bill's scrutiny has been rushed through within a short time. As a result, the people of Kent place great reliance on the hybrid Bill procedure, which allows them to petition the House and, for the first time, to obtain a fair hearing for their grievances. They hope that Parliament will do what the Government have so far failed to do, and will scrutinise the Channel tunnel project with thorough and proper procedures.
Unfortunately, the Department of Transport's published timetable may create the impression that the Select Commitee will be yet another fixed rush job and that Parliament will just dance subserviently to the Government's tune and keep to the Government's timetable. As the guardian of the rights of constituents through their elected representatives, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to rule on the following points?
First, is it in order for a Department to issue a public document giving the parliamentary timetable on a Bill that has not yet even had its Second Reading? Surely that is a contempt of the House. Secondly, will you reassure the House and the people of Kent that no timetable has been imposed by the Government on the Channel Tunnel Bill, and that such a power rests only with Parliament? In particular, will you emphasise that the sitting arrangements and timings for a Select Committee are decided by the members of that Committee, and will you take note of the view that any attempt to rush through a Select Committee's hearings on a Bill of this magnitude in six weeks would be highly unusual, if not irregular?
Finally, will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that the Channel Tunnel Bill, far from being at full speed ahead, is already marooned by other procedural snags of the Government's own making? Is it not the case that the hybrid parts of the Bill have already been judged out of time by the Examiners, and that the Bill can now proceed only if the Standing Orders Committee takes the controversial step of granting it an official dispensation?
Will you use your good offices to ensure that some second thoughts are given to the Bill by the Government and the usual channels in order to ensure that better parliamentary manners and a greater degree of fair play and fair hearing is shown to my constituents and others whose interests are affected?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) for giving me notice of his point of order, as it has enabled me to go into the matter in some detail.
The hon. Gentleman is correct in stating that the Examiners of the Petitions for Private Bills, to whom the House referred the Bill on 18 April, reported on Monday that, in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill, the relevant Standing Orders have not been complied with. The Examiners' report has therefore been referred in the usual way to the Standing Orders Committee.
As to the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I need say only that progress on the Bill, and the time spent on it, are entirely matters for the House, not for me.
Any informal timetable or other document circulated by the hon. Member in charge of the Bill must be a matter for him. A formal timetable or guillotine could be imposed only by the House.
As the House knows, this Bill is a hybrid Bill, and will follow well-established procedures. If the Standing Orders Committee allows the Bill to proceed, and if the House decides to give the Bill a Second Reading and commits it to a Select Committee, it will be for the Chairman and members of that Committee to decide on the times and duration of its sittings.

Mr. Peter Shore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will be grateful to you for that ruling, which meets some of the anxieties raised quite properly by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). But the matter goes a bit further than that. All hon. Members will want to know where on earth the document came from and what involvement the Secretary of State for Transport had in its preparation. Such timetables are not simply manufactured out of thin air. If the Secretary of State for Transport has been involved, I very much hope that the Leader of the House, who is in his place, will convey to him the anger felt on both sides of the House over his consent to its publication. If the Secretary of State is involved, we expect an early statement from him on the matter.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I thank you for clarifying the position? The position of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) in relation to the Channel Tunnel Bill is well known. I support the concept of the tunnel and the Government's approach, but I also share the concerns aired by my hon. Friend, as it is essential that my Kent constituents should feel that their very real concerns will be properly considered by the House, as you have outlined, Mr. Speaker, and by, in particular, the members of the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need add anything to what I have said. I hope that I have made the position clear.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the document has been referred to, will it be made available


to the rest of the House, so that hon. Members may see the wording used and whether the interpretation put on it by hon. Members fits with the actual wording?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know anything about the document. It is a matter for the Government. I understand that it is an unofficial timetable from some hon. Member concerned with the Bill, but I do not know anything about it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 16 MAY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Heddle
Mr. James Wallace
Mr. Cecil Franks

BILL PRESENTED

DOG FIGHTING (PENALTIES) (No. 2)

Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911 to increase the penalties for causing or procuring, or assisting at, the fighting or baiting of any animal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 May and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the matter of the Welsh Development Agency, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grant Committee for its consideration—[Mr. Durant.]

Air Navigation Orders Amendment

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make Air Navigation Orders subject to negative resolution procedure.
Section 60 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 gives the Secretary of State for Transport the power, by statutory instrument, to regulate air navigation through air navigation orders. On 30 October 1985, Air Navigation Order No. 1643 was made. It was laid before Parliament on 7 November 1985, and came into operation on 1 December 1985. That statutory instrument contains 139 pages, 10 parts, 98 sections and 13 schedules. It is a complex and formidable instrument.
At the time it was laid before Parliament it was subject to the negative resolution, and it would have been possible for hon. Members to pray against it. In theory at least, there was a form of parliamentary scrutiny and control. I say "in theory" because the instrument is so long and complex and contains sections which, when examined carefully, disclose that it gives huge powers to the Secretary of State for Transport, powers over which Parliament no longer has any say or control. For example, article 64(1) in part VIII, which concerns the control of air traffic, states:
Without prejudice to any other provision of this Order, the Secretary of State may make regulations (referred to in this Order as the Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control) prescribing—
(a) the manner in which aircraft may move or fly including in particular provision for requiring aircraft to give way to military aircraft.
Subparagraph (e) states:
any other provisions for securing the safety of aircraft in flight and in movement and the safety of persons and property on the surface.
Article 69(1) states:
Where the Secretary of State deems it necessary in the public interest to restrict or prohibit flying by reason of—…
(iii) national defence or any other reason affecting the public interest".
That is a sweeping and all-embracing power. Article 69(1) (b) states:
Regulations made under this article may apply either generally or in relation to any class of aircraft.
That is another catch-all power vested in the Secretary of State. I submit that those are wide-ranging and sweeping powers. Not surprisingly, air space users have, in different ways, registered their concern.
My right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers at the Department of Transport are aware of the concern. I have attended meetings with Ministers at which representatives of the independent airlines have voiced their concern about Air Navigation Order 1985, No. 1643. I have also attended meetings at which Ministers have been made aware of defects concerning the legal aspects of a number of the articles and schedules on Air Navigation Order No. 1643.
When Parliament gave the Civil Aviation Authority the power to advise Ministers and Ministers the right to introduce rules of the air with no further reference to Parliament, it did so because it believed that those matters should be handled by experts. The first group of experts was the staff of National Air Traffic Services. National Air Traffic Services is a joint body which is responsible to the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Transport. It comprises civil servants experienced in air traffic control and serving Royal Air Force officers also experienced in air traffic control. The present controller of NATS is a civil


servant. The previous controller was a serving Royal Air Force air marshal. The present deputy controller is a serving Royal Air Force air vice-marshal. The previous deputy controller was a civil servant.
The experts from National Air Traffic Services were required to consult the experts representing all the interested bodies who use the air space. Recommendations which emerged from the consultations regarding the introduction of regulations affecting air space were to be made to the Secretary of State for Transport. The experts were required to consult a body called NATMAC. The chairman of this body is a serving Royal Air Force air commodore.
If the consultations between the experts had worked effectively and the users of the air space had been confident that discussions were not just ritual or, as some have said, a sham, the fact that Parliament has no say in the introduction of new air space regulations would not have mattered. Sadly, I have to report that new regulated air space has been introduced. Evidence claiming to support the need has, upon examination, in more than one instance, been found to be flawed.
I cite the example of Blue 22, the airway between Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. It took me many years to have the airway moved. It was moved to the position where I suggested it should and could have been when it was first proposed. I thank my hon. Frind the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—the Member for Worcester, North (Mr. Spicer)—and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the other place for making the change possible. We remain deeply indebted to them.
Recently, we have seen the introduction of special air space rules at Royal Air Force Brize Norton and the 200 square mile rule 36a mandatory radiocall air space at the United States Air Force base at Upper Heyford. I know that hon. Members are aware of other reasons for it being reported. I shall make my position quite clear. I fully support the decision on the use of that base, and nothing that I have to say is in condemnation of that act. I would support it a second time.
I understand that hon. Members have been advised that microlight balloonists, hang gliders, parachutists and other recreational flying organisations support the measures that have been taken and are happy with the arrangements concerning Brize Norton and Upper Heyford.
Hon. Members have been advised that local gliding clubs are happy with the arrangements on a trial period

basis—an arrangement which was made by a working group which was asked to look into the problems that were claimed to exist. In my view, those claims have not been proven. I believe that the near-miss statistics are flawed.
I have been advised by the air space user bodies that, contrary to what hon. Members have been told, none of the bodies is happy. I shall be writing to my hon. Friend at the Department of Transport and will provide evidence that they are not happy. I shall provide him with all the details.
It was not acceptable for a senior RAF officer to advise the air space users' experts at the NATMAC meetings that they should not lobby hon. Members—however well-intentioned that advice was and however it was given. He was not qualified to do so. That was unwise and probably naive.
No one denies that we must have safe air space. No one denies that some controls are essential. I claim that the system of checks and balances which is required in a democracy has broken down. At present, the system is fundamentally flawed.
Regarding the trial at Upper Heyford, the evidence suggests that the air traffic controllers will be unable to handle the radio traffic. In my view, the trial will not produce any reliable evidence on which decisions can be taken. The airlines are unhappy. Commercial and recreational fliers are unhappy. Aviation legislation is in a confused state. The system used to create the legislation is not adequately scrutinised by Parliament. The body responsible for introducing the legislation is supervised by two Ministers—two bosses—which is a most unhappy situation. That is why urgent action is needed. The present policy has structural defects which will lead to management and operational problems. My Bill will make a small contribution towards rectifying the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bill Walker, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Jack Aspinwall, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Dennis Canavan.

AIR NAVIGATION ORDERS AMENDMENT

Mr. Bill Walker accordingly presented a Bill to make Air Navigation Orders subject to negative resolution procedure: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 June and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

Orders of the Day — Public Order Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

OFFENCES OF HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS

'(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) he uses words which are threatening, abusive or insulting or behaviour which is threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly, and
(b) those words or that behaviour cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person, or
(c) such words or behaviour are likely to harass, alarm or distress another person.

(2) Offences under this section may be committed in private as well as in public places, but a person using words or behaviour inside a dwelling does not commit such an offence unless the use is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to persons outside that and any other dwelling.

(3) In subsection (2) "dwelling" has the same meaning as in section 4(2).

'he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.'.

and amendment (a) thereto, in line 6, at end insert—
'(c) causes a noise or noises which is or are likely to harass, alarm or distress another person and he has reason to believe that such noise or noises is or are likely to cause such harassment, alarm or distress.'.
Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17, and 19 and 22.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The new clause and the amendments arise from the debris of the late and unlamented clause 5. The Police Federation said:
Clause 5 we regard in its present form as a legislative nightmare. We do not regard it as practicable in its present form and its present potential to do that which it is apparently intended to do is close to nil.
When I arrived somewhat late in Committee, I was delighted to hear the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) quoting those wise words. Although I would never accuse him of being a born again Christian, I was delighted to find that, in the intervening period between consideration of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and the consideration of this legislation, he had come a long way towards accepting at least the occasional wisdom of the police service. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the group of supporters of the Police Federation and hope that he will long continue to adopt that posture.
It would be wrong to rehearse in detail my new clause 1, because the House will wish most to hear the

(4) It is a defence for the accused to prove that his conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.

(5) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he finds committing an offence under this section.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(7) A person is guilty of an offence under this section only if he uses words which are threatening, abusive or insulting or behaviour which is threatening, abusive, insulting or disorderly and he intends his words or behaviour to cause alarm, harassment or distress or is reckless as to the consequences of his words or behaviour.'.—[Sir Eldon Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 12.
Government amendment No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 32 leave out from 'if' to end of line 7 on page 4 and insert

Government's explanation of their amendments, which, broadly speaking, traverse the same territory as the new clause. In the interests of starting this long Report stage at a good pace, the best thing that I can do is to allow my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office to explain the Government's amendments.

Clauses 4 and 5, with which this series of amendments deal, are among the most important in the Bill. For a long time we have been conscious of the threat to our people from violent crimes—for example, rape, burglary, vandalism and assaults. We have been less conscious of that which affects large numbers of ordinary people but rarely gets into the headlines—the insults and harassment which distress the elderly, the poor and the lonely in the neighbourhoods of our cities, especially in high-rise buildings. Too often such crimes and harassment are ignored by the media. They are rarely tackled in the House because they do not have the political sex appeal of the larger crimes. The House will be going to the rescue of a large number of ordinary people if it passes the amendments.
We should be concerned primarily with the victims—the elderly, the pregnant women wheeling their prams in areas where they are set upon by hooligans, the black people in white neighbourhoods and, sometimes, the white


people in black neighbourhoods, who are confronted by gangs of youngsters who behave in a fashion with which we must deal.
I am glad that the Government's amendments, with the Opposition's support, have included the offensive literature, signs and other graffiti that can be used to cause distress and to harass.
I have just returned from Northern Ireland. I know, of course, that that region is not covered by the Bill. This morning I saw a sign which almost precisely illustrated the types of signs with which we should deal. After the petrol bombing of the homes of a large number of Northern Ireland police officers, especially three women police officers who were intimidated out of their flat by petrol bombs, signs were held up saying, in the language of the National Coal Board, "Go home to a nice warm fire. Join the RUC." By any measure that is insulting, but I am not certain that a court of law would necessarily, under the terms of the amendments, bring in a finding of guilty in such cases.
There is no doubt that the intention behind a sign which says, "Go home to a nice warm fire. Join the RUC" and which is held up in the neighbourhoods in which police officers live is crystal clear. Also crystal clear is the literature put out, I regret to say, by the GLC and some of the London boroughs in their attempts to insult, harass and cause distress to the police service.
I shall not argue the case for my new clause. I look forward instead to hearing the explanation of my hon. Friend the Minister of State of the Government's amendments, which more or less traverse the same ground as new clause 1.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The greatest environmental nuisance from which our people suffer is noise caused by their fellow citizens. The law is inadequate. The police and environmental health officers believe that it is inadequate. Large numbers of people in the inner cities whose life is made hell by noise from their neighbours certainly know that the law is inadequate.
The environmental health officer who deals with all the problems of pollution would be able to tell us that the greatest number of complaints that he receives on pollution concern noise and noise nuisance. It is a striking fact that in the past two years the number of complaints concerning noise has increased by about 25 per cent. each year.
I should like to give two examples. I remember coming up to London one evening at 8 o'clock. I got out of my car and heard the noise of a pop concert. It was the loudest noise in the vicinity. If I had tried to talk to someone on the street, I would have found it difficult because of the noise. I found out later that the pop concert was a third of a mile away from where I was standing. There must have been 250,000 people within earshot of that din. The concert had started at half-past 2 in the afternoon. No doubt the police had received countless complaints. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the police could do nothing about it. There was, of course, always the possibility of going to the environmental health officer, but, because it was Lambeth, no such officer was on duty at that time. Of course, he could have done little about the problem.
My second example concerns a letter from Mr. Bailey, a constituent of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. Bailey kindly sent me a copy of a letter that he sent to his Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is not here, but I hope that he will not mind if I read a short extract. The letter stated:
as I am writing this letter, there is music playing from a flat loud enough to drown the television in my own flat … The particular flat in question had a party last night … and after a sleepless night … at 7.30 the music was still blasting out. This was Sunday evening. On Saturday evening there were five all night parties, so that evening was sleepless. Last Wednesday the flat that is making the noise tonight had had another all night party … All this … takes place in one section, one of the quadrangles of the estate on which I live, to say nothing of the fact that there are also parties being organised in other sections …
These are not simply parties, a large number of them are paying businesses brought about by tickets being printed and issued in public houses … charges being made … the printed tickets advertise 'the blues party sounds' disco equipment, lights, DJs etc … Add to this you get a great movement of people wandering, running and shouting round the balconies, knocking doors at all hours, going from one party to another and back again, shouting across from one walkway to another at each other, bottles are broken on the walkways—milk bottles, wine bottles etc., walls are urinated on and to have to use the lifts in the morning is foul as you literally stand in pools of urine where the lifts are used as a public convenience.
The position at present is that all that can be done by the police is that they can ask for the noise to be turned down, but it rarely has any effect as they have no power to reinforce this. The environmental health officer can be informed though cannot be called out at the necessary times".
Mr. Bailey and the people who live near him, and the many thousands of other people in our inner cities, have a real problem to live with. It is time that we stopped tolerating the intolerant making life intolerable for many of our citizens.
As a result of the experience that I had with the pop concert, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister and asked what the Government could do about it. He kindly wrote back to me and said:
Experience suggests that Part III of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 offers considerable scope for action against environmental noise … However, I agree that it does not always provide the perfect solution.
We are not looking for the perfect solution, but we are looking for a solution. The letter continued:
There can be a problem where the objective is to stop the noise, rather than prevent recurrence".
I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he is in the vicinity of the noise he will find that it is a big problem. My hon. Friend's letter went on:
successful action usually depends on the availability of the EHO to act during the night, during the holidays or at weekends and this unfortunately is not always possible. Enforcing a notice through the courts would, of course, take time.
I have just proved to my hon. Friend that that is a great underestimate and is a problem as well.
A number of local authorities are anxious to take action to deal with this problem, but many of them are less aggressive in their supervision of this issue. In that context, one has only to look at the local authority run by that seminal influence on the philosophy of the Labour party, Mr. Bernard Grant—Haringey—to answer the question about whether the law is effectively applied there. My hon. Friend said in his letter:
the Public Order Bill currently before Parliament includes a provision for the creation of a new offence of disorderly conduct, which in certain circumstances could apply to the nuisance caused by noisy parties.


That is this Bill. I welcome that provision and regard it as an invitation to help to reinforce the Bill by bringing forward my amendment. I may well seek to press it to a Division, but we shall see how we go.
A short article was published not long ago in Environmental Health. Opposition Members may be every bit as interested in that article as are Government Members, because many of their constituents suffer the same problem. The article stated:
Early in 1983 the London Borough of Waltham Forest received a complaint about noise nuisance being caused by loud music, live and recorded, being played by a young couple (with two children and pregnant with a third), in a tower block. The nuisance was confirmed by an environmental health officer and despite verbal warnings it continued. In August"—
hon. Members should bear in mind that the nuisance started early in 1983–
a Section 58 notice was served on them both. Ten days later a contravention was witnessed by an environmental health officer. Legal proceedings were instituted and came to Court on the 8th November.
The section 58 notice was served in August and legal proceedings did not come to court until 8 November. The article continued:
The case was adjourned and there followed two more adjournments. The music at this time was still continuing to such an extent that one complainant took his family into bed and breadfast accommodation and another slept on a park bench.
The Council then decided to seek an injunction which was granted on the 19th December. On the 23rd December the Section 58 case came to Court and the defendants were found guilty, and each fined £200 with £100 costs.
They appealed against conviction and sentence but failed to attend the Crown Court hearing in May 1984.
—the original nuisance having started well over a year before—
In July the music started again, intermittently at first but then more persistently. On the 1st October a warning letter was sent and apparently ignored. The Council then reluctantly took action under the injunction and on the 4th December 1984"—
nearly two years after the original offence—
the case appeared in the High Court.
The Judge found in the Council's favour but due to the now three children did not sentence the woman defendant. The man, however, was given 7 days imprisonment, suspended for 3 months. The Judge further ordered that the music should never again be a nuisance and after 10 pm should not even be audible anywhere outside their flat.
I wonder whether the people have had even that success. That was two years of hell for all the people living in that neighbourhood and that was all that could be done under the law as it exists.
My hon. Friend is bringing forward his amendment which will make it an offence if anybody indulges in disorderly behaviour
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
If such an offence occurs, a police constable will be able to ask the offender to desist and, if noise is the offence, to turn down the noise. If the offender does not do so, in the final event arrest will ensue. We need to know whether this will apply if a noise case is taken to court. Will the court interpret my hon. Friend's amendment as applying to noise?
4.45 pm
We are anxious to know whether the law is wide enough and whether it can be applied. Many of the people who suffer are the weak, like the little old lady who has to put up with this din week in and week out. Under the present law, if the case is taken to court, the probability is that such a lady will have to go to court and testify. I ask the House

to think of the potential harassment, victimisation and intimidation she would have to consider. She would not go to court because it would not be worth her life to do so. To go to court is not a realistic alternative for her.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: My hon. Friend is right, but does he agree that the problem is even worse than he has outlined? There is a civil remedy, but no legal aid is available for those who take that sort of action. Because of the time-wasting tactics in such a case, the person that my hon. Friend describes would find herself with enormous court bills and no remedy at the end of the day.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters, and I accept his advice. That is the reality of the problem, and the experience of many unfortunate people has taught them that they have no real remedy.
I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about his amendment. Will it remedy the situation? My amendment seeks to give the police powers which will be sensibly used, because the police are always cognisant of the overall necessity of maintaining public order. If this nuisance occurs and many people in the neighbourhood complain, the police will be empowered to go and tell the offender to desist. If he does not desist, the police will be able to take further action. Short of such powers, I do not know how we are to rid our neighbourhoods of this nuisance. I am sure that my hon. Friend will look at the matter as carefully as he can and, hopefully, will see what the Government can do to help.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am slightly puzzled by the part of Government amendment No. 12 which reads:
except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.'.
However, having seen such an incident once, a passerby would be less likely to do anything or become annoyed than someone in a house across the road who must look at an offending sign day in and day out. I should like to know why the amendment has been so worded.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I support amendment (a) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to Government amendment No. 13. He has hit on an issue important to those of us who represent inner-city constituencies. Not a surgery of mine passes by without someone complaining about noise nuisance from above them or to the side of them. Such noise arises from parties of various kinds and ranges from guitars to bongo drums, all of which causes immense unhappiness. I suggested that such occurrences are not the everyday life of parliamentary draftsmen or Ministers' advisers. Consequently, they may not realise the problems faced by ordinary people who live in blocks of flats in inner cities.
The Minister is a robust Yorkshireman who comes from a part of the world that used to provide superb cricketers. He is therefore able to knock odd advice away from him and to say, "They may be right in detail, but I want this done. Find a form of words that will do it." I am sure that that is the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, whose amendment I was delighted to sign, and that is what I certainly want. I do not want to be told, "We think that it is covered by the Bill, but it will


have to be tested in the courts." We do not want to be told, "It is rather difficult and we are not sure whether it can be done."
When my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North said that he might have to force this issue to a Division, there was laughter from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not find this a funny matter, nor do my constituents who have come to me with very real problems and who have been unable to sleep for weekend after weekend.
I do not expect the Minister to say that he accepts the amendment, because I know that no drafting by Back Benchers ever satisfies the rigid criteria of parliamentary draftsmen—and understandably so. I hope that he will accept that there is a real problem in this regard and say that if the amendment is not pressed he will return at a later stage with a form of wording that will cover the important issues that we are seeking to raise.
I hope that the Minister will understand that this is one of the two most frustrating types of case with which we must deal. At present we cannot help people. We can tell them to use the byelaws and to get three people to sign, but then those who have signed are subjected to unpleasant threats.
There is a case in my constituency at present of people who have done immense service for charity in London and overseas. One is now sick with heart trouble. The council moved those people to a quiet flat, but they are being harassed by a group of young 12-year-olds who constantly skateboard outside, thus making it difficult for them to sleep. When the woman remonstrates gently—and she is a gentle woman—with some of the parents, she is verbally harassed and told to mind her own business. That was not the phrase that was used, but I doubt whether the House would wish to hear the filthy language that exists even in Hampstead. The following night, until dusk, these skateboarding youngsters made life for my constituents utter hell.
That is also a form of noise, and while it may not be possible to bring it within the scope of the amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, it illustrates the point that a citizen should not be obliged to get the support of other citizens who are then exposed to the verbal harassment and intimidation that might follow.
The intervention of the police under reasonable circumstances would be a more pleasant way of proceeding for the innocent victims of extremely unpleasant circumstances. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort to our constituents who are so disturbed by all this.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): In responding to my hon. Friends, I wish also to speak to the Government amendments that have been grouped with the new clause. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) for having the generosity to move his new clause in such a rapid and courteous way. I shall attempt to deal with the subject of the new clause in my comments on the Government's amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) asked about the purpose of amendment No. 12. That relates to clause 4, which replaces the

existing offence of threatening behaviour in section 5 of the Public Order Act. Although the amendments propose a complete redraft of sections 1 and 2, they contain only two changes. The first was a point put to us by the police to reformulate the test of conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, and clause 4 specifies parties to the conduct. However, in making the offence more specific, we unintentionally lost some of the conduct currently caught by section 5. In particular, clause 4 would not catch the situation where the defendant used threats towards one person in a way that was likely to provoke a violent response by someone else—for example, the victim's parent or spouse.
There was doubt whether certain other triangular conflicts would be covered. Amendment No. 12 puts this beyond doubt by inserting "or another" in the appropriate place in clause 4(1). In this respect it brings it into line with section 5 of the Public Order Act. That is why the amendment is so drafted.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: In my new clause and in the Government amendment, the offence is not committed where one person is inside a building and the other person is inside that or another dwelling. The problem is that if two flats are adjacent to each other and a vile notice in the window is visible to a person living in an adjoining flat, the other person is aggravated, annoyed, harassed and insulted, but the police can do nothing about it because the person who is harassed is in another dwelling.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend will recall that in Committee we spent a substantial time discussing the extent to which the offence should extend to individuals within private dwellings. He will also be aware that the other part of our amendment refers to the display or writing of visible representation
which is threatening, abusive or insulting.
We made it quite clear that that does not have the same impact as words or behaviour outside. My hon. Friend is therefore right to say that in this case we are constrained by the privacy of separate homes. He will recall that if a person made an insulting remark or displayed a sign for the benefit of outsiders, that would be covered. But it would not be covered if it was within the same private dwelling. If that does not satisfy my hon. Friend, I shall take the matter up separately with him.
The main amendment is No. 13, which reflects the redrafting to clause 5. There are three changes of substance to which I should draw attention. Much the most important is the introduction of a victim. We said in Committee that we hoped to introduce such a requirement, but without going so far that the victim would be required to give evidence in every case. Some doubt was expressed as to whether we could square the circle in that way, but we believe that we have managed to do that by importing into clause 5(1) the additional requirement that the defendant's behaviour should be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
5 pm
The victim need not be someone who was alarmed, harassed or distressed, but someone who saw or heard the defendant's conduct and was likely to be alarmed by it. The prosecution will not necessarily have to produce the victim in court, but it will have to identify in each case who it was who was likely to be alarmed and so on. The


court's mind will thus be concentrated on the impact, or likely impact, of the defendant's behaviour on those who were around at that time.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I well understand the basis upon which the changes have been made, and, of course, I welcome the concessions that have been made, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the form of the amendment dealing with the likelihood of someone being affected is yet another example of the law paying slavish adherence to the hearsay rule? Does he not think that it is high time that the hearsay rule was re-examined in respect of offences such as this? Does he not think that it would have been far better to require there to be somebody who was actually harassed, alarmed or distressed, but to permit hearsay evidence to be given in court as to the fact that that person had been harassed, alarmed or distressed? I make the suggestion particularly in the light of the White Paper on criminal justice which was recently published in which the Government appear to accept the principle that we must re-examine the hearsay rule to see whether we need to adhere to it as tightly as we have.

Mr. Shaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman would have witnessed, if he had been a member of the Standing Committee, the substantial discussions that took place on how far we should go to provide an offence which would protect although it would identify those persons on whom a mischief was committed and which did not require such persons to face the defendant. The Committee was also concerned about the court relying solely on the evidence of the arresting officer or the officer bringing the charge.
The points made that convinced us that we were going in the right direction were, firstly, that there was a real need to protect the vulnerable members of society and not to require, in every case, the victims to be produced in court. We believed equally that it was necessary to remove as far as possible the accusation that there was a revival of the sus law and that it was not simply a matter of hearsay or suspicion. We believe that we have gone some way in the drafting of this amendment to achieving those aims.
Where an offence is committed a person must be within sight or hearing whom the officer can claim would have been likely to have been harassed, alarmed or distressed. The amendment still provides for more direct evidence to be produced, but if we are to protect the vulnerable from giving evidence in cases involving disorderly conduct from young hooligans we would not want that to happen in every case.
The victim must certainly be proved to be someone who had been alarmed, harassed or distressed or that the defendant's conduct was at least likely to alarm. The prosecution will not necessarily have to produce the victim, though it must identify who it was who was likely to be alarmed or distressed. In that way, the amendment will have the desired effect.
It is not enough for magistrates to feel that the person would have been alarmed or distressed, or that someone might have been so if present at the scene. They must ascertain who was there and whether that person was likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed by the defendant's conduct. We believe that that is an important new safeguard which should help to quell any remaining fears that the disorderly conduct provision is a revival of sus.
The next change that we have made to clause 5(1) has been to delete the requirement that the defendant must

have reasonable cause to believe that his words or behaviour are likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress. That reflected the views expressed in Committee that we wanted to provide a defence for the defendant who was not aware and had no reason to be aware that his behaviour was likely to cause alarm and so on and that this safeguard might perhaps be achieved by reinserting "reasonable grounds to believe" as a defence. Clause 5(3)(a) of the amendment does that by providing a defence that the defendant had no reasonable cause to believe that anyone was likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed by his behaviour. Clause 5(3)(b) provides a similar defence for a defendant inside a dwelling.
Finally, amendment No. 13 deals with a consequential amendment to clause 5 flowing from the deletion of clause 8(5). We initially considered an amendment similar to that I described earlier to clause 4 which would have brought within the offence the distribution or display of any writing and so on. However, if clause 5 were recast to catch the distribution of written matter, letters would come within its scope. That would go potentially very wide if the offence extended to all insulting or abusive correspondence which was likely to alarm, harass or distress. It would cut across the work on poison pen letters currently being done by the Law Commission. For that reason we decided to restrict clause 5 to the display of any writing, sign arid so on.
Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 19 are minor and consequential amendments to the amendment I have been discussing. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) draws attention to a very distressing position which he amplified in the examples he gave. It is his intention that we should add a new sub-paragraph to clause 5(1) which specifically penalises the causing of noise which is likely to harass, alarm or distress another person. I must tell my hon. Friend that we cannot accept his amendment as it stands because we have now deleted from the offence the phrase "reasonable cause to believe". However, I hope that I might persuade him that at least some of the examples that he has cited would be covered by the offence that we have revised. In introducing a requirement of a victim we deliberately provided that it should be someone within hearing or sight of the defendant so that noise alone is not excluded from disorderly conduct. Blowing whistles, banging dustbin lids and shouting obscenities would all come within the scope of the offence, as would some of the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North as they are examples of disorderly behaviour. Using insulting or abusive words likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress will also come within the scope of the offence.
Disorderly conduct may well be appropriate to prosecute people who use noise to harass others, but it would still have to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that that was the intention of the use of the noise, or that the person was simply paying no heed to the consequences of using excessive noise in the street. Where there is persistent noise nuisance a special procedure under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 may well be appropriate and may well be a more appropriate channel to follow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North drew particular attention to the problem caused by long and noisy parties which remain a persistent nuisance and cause distress and harassment to other residents in the area. Section 58 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 enables


an officer of the local authority to serve a notice on the person causing the noise. My hon. Friend is well aware of the responsibilities which lie in those areas. If the recipient fails to comply with the notice, criminal proceedings may be instituted, although I accept that that does not bring swift satisfaction.
My hon. Friend must realise that if the new powers are not sufficient we must look again at the position to ensure that we have available the primary powers to deal with the nuisance caused by constant music noise. That power will be found within the Control of Pollution Act; music noise is not, of itself, disorderly conduct.
Of course, this is the first time that we have discussed this issue in the Bill. I therefore tell my hon. Friend that I am persuaded from what he has said that we should take more time to examine the problem and perhaps to enter into discussions with the police about it so that we do not take precipitate action. If my hon. Friend can supply me with further examples of the kind of problems he has addressed in his remarks and if there are gaps in the law, we shall see what we can do to fill them.
However, the extension of clause 5 in the way proposed by my hon. Friend's amendment will not help to ease the distress felt by neighbours as a result of noisy parties. I shall want to examine that point further and, as the Bill proceeds, we may wish to come back to that matter. I would be grateful to have the assistance of further examples from my hon. Friend or from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), and I shall enter into discussions with the police on those issues.
In the light of those assurances, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will withdraw his clause and allow us to examine the procedure further.

Mr. Chris Smith: Amendment No. 13 is a major improvement. We welcome the steps which the Government have taken to change the clause in the course of redrafting. However, we still have a number of doubts.
My right hon. and hon. Friends know only too well from everyday experience the difficulties which face many people, particularly in inner city areas, as a result of people who gather in some numbers and cause harassment, alarm or distress. On some of the council estates in my constituency youngsters gather at the bottom of staircases, around blocks or in dark corners and make a considerable amount of noise, frequently late into the evening. Many people, particularly single elderly people living on their own, go in some considerable fear of the activities of such people.
The answer to that problem lies in good sensible practical policing. Again, there are examples to be found in my constituency of tenants sitting down with council officers, counsellors and the local police to work out a programme of action to improve the physical fabric of such estates in order to reduce the opportunities for such gatherings and to discuss with the police how to patrol and deal with such action. In the cases where that solution has been tried it has worked and there has been much improvement.
The major practical response to such problems and difficulties, which all of us recognise exist, certainly all of us who represent inner city areas, must lie in

improvements to the fabric of our neighbourhoods and estates and in good sensible patrolling by police officers on the beat who know their local patch and the local people.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman is describing a situation that we all know. Does he agree that, in addition to what he has said, it would also be helpful to allow the police on to the estates, where they can be of direct assistance to the people living there?

Mr. Smith: I would certainly agree that beat policing by police officers on council estates, and indeed in council blocks, is to be welcomed. In my area the local authority has issued a standing invitation to the police to do so. I particularly welcome close and careful discussion between tenants, the council which owns the property and the police to ensure that concerted action is taken to deal with such problems.
We still have some disquiet about amendment No. 13 and the new offence of disorderly conduct which the Government have brought forward in response to the acknowledged difficulty. First and foremost, we welcome the fact that the Government wish to include the presence of a potential victim. I stress the word "potential" because the amendment does not make the presence of a victim a necessity. Opposition Members would have preferred to see an actual victim and actual distress and harm having been caused for an offence to be committed. Indeed, we would have welcomed the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about the kind of evidence that might well be permissible in order to prove that actual harm, distress or alarm was caused.
5.15 pm
Let me give one obvious example. If, on a council estate, an elderly tenant went in fear because of a gathering of youngsters and fear was caused, but the elderly tenant was reluctant, for understandable reasons, to give evidence in court, it should surely be possible, for example, for the tenants association on that estate to give evidence on that person's behalf. That would be a sensible way to approach the matter. However, the Government have come up with the formula of the presence of a person having to be demonstrated, but that the distress, alarm or harassment must simply be likely to be caused, rather than actually caused. We are worried about that, because it leaves us with a hypothetical action being the subject of an offence, rather than an actual action being the subject of an offence.
Secondly, we are worried that the Government have not seen fit to include, as they would have done if they had followed the advice of their own White Paper, the word "substantial" as a clarifying definition in the nature of the offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress. It would have brought back a distinction between inconvenience being caused and fear being generated, which is the nub of the problem in attempting to define an offence of this kind. We should have preferred to see the word "substantial".
Thirdly, we are worried that the burden of proof appears to have been changed in the amendment—the change which the Minister described—from the prosecution having to prove that someone had reasonable cause to believe that the use of the words or behaviour was likely to harass, alarm or distress, to the defendant having


to prove that he had no reason so to believe. That changes the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence, and we are worried about the impact of that.
Those are our three major concerns about the clause as it would stand if the amendment were accepted. We are even more deeply worried about amendment (a) to the proposed amendment No. 13. We would not wish to see this amendment accepted, and we warn the Minister against too ready an ear being given by him to his Back Benchers. We are especially worried about the difficulty of definition. All of us who represent inner city areas, where people live close together, accept and acknowledge that there is a noise problem. However, we do not believe that inserting noise into the list of potential offences in the clause would present a solution to that problem.

Mr. Marlow: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he agree that action of some sort needs to be taken to reinforce the law with regard to the noise nuisance which he has been discussing?

Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment, I shall answer his point. It is difficult to distinguish between the noise which is an inconvenience to others but which would not, in all reasonableness, be described as a criminal offence, and the noise which, because of its loudness, persistence and close proximity to others, should become subject to the criminal law. We are worried because, if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted, it would be difficult for the courts to know where to draw the line.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment might have a deterrent effect if it were put on the statute book? People might think twice before acting in such an inconsiderate manner.

Mr. Smith: I am always doubtful about legislating for reasons other than to create an offence. It is not sensible to legislate to give messages to the general public. However, action can be taken, and I would welcome any moves to make a civil proceeding on issues of noise easier for the public to undertake. At present, it is a daunting and difficult process for ordinary members of the public to undertake.

Mr. Marlow: If there is a robust group of young people who consistently make a lot of loud noise, and if there is an elderly, relatively defenceless citizen in proximity who is persistently and consistently abused by this noise, how can the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be possible to take a civil remedy? How could that person, with all the potential intimidation that would be present, pursue a civil case through the courts—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: And the expense.

Mr. Marlow: —let alone the expense.

Mr. Smith: Many suggestions could be made, including making it much easier to use the local authority environmental health service to assist in such action. The Opposition would prefer such a procedure to be examined, rather than the Government seeking to put a sweeping power on to the statute book which could be open to wide misinterpretation.
The Opposition would also say—this is a crucial matter—that it is much better to endeavour to prevent such distress, alarm and noise from taking place than to attempt to create offences after the event. We must enable

local authorities to improve the standards of their estates and neighbourhoods. We should pursue that route vigorously.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman has tried to find a way through a difficult problem. Does he accept that the majority of environmental health authorities are open only during normal working hours and that much of the trouble occurs outside those hours? Does he also accept that much of the noise nuisance occurs in purpose-built blocks of council flats which have not been affected by a lack of money for maintenance? Even if they were superbly improved as the hon. Gentleman wishes, doors and windows would unfortunately still be left open arid the noise would pour out. Does he accept that changing the civil law to make it easier and quicker to obtain redress will not help those whom he and I wish to help?

Mr. Smith: I did not wish to turn this into a party political debate, but it grieves me to hear a Member who supports a Government who have withdrawn rate support grant from local authorities and rate capped authorities in inner cities say that environmental health offices are not open for long enough, and that environmental health officers are not available in sufficient numbers or at the right times to assist tenants in such circumstances.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: They never have been.

Mr. Smith: It also grieves me to hear from a Member who supports a Government who have cut housing investment allocations to local authorities by two thirds during the past seven years that there are problems in the standards of construction and maintenance on council estates.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill.

Mr. Smith: I am not straying from the Bill. I am identifying a major problem in the prevention of crime, and the distress, alarm and harassment caused to individuals who live in inadequate accommodation.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: We are talking about windows being open.

Mr. Smith: That is a major problem, and cuts in resources available to local authorities are a major cause of that problem.
We are considerably worried about some aspects of the Government's amendment. We are especially worried about the absence of a victim, and the fact that the victim need only be a potential or likely victim. Some aspects of the offence are similar to the sus law, which is bad for those who must be protected from such behaviour and bad for the police.
Although the Opposition have that major reservation, we shall not divide the House on the amendment, because major advances have been made on the original clause in the Bill that we debated on Second Reading. We are worried that the delicate balance between protecting the peace and quiet of individual citizens and protecting the civil liberties of other citizens, which the Bill is all about, has not yet been struck by the Government. Despite our worries, we welcome the improvements which were won in Committee and which the Government have introduced in the amendment.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the Government's attempt to meet what was


undoubtedly the most serious matter debated in Committee on clause 5 and its ambit. The Minister will agree that no issue exercised more hon. Members from different parties. It was recognised that the Government's Bill was quite out of line with their own White Paper and that the new offence which was being created would not require the presence of a victim or that the victim should have suffered serious harassment, alarm or distress. The Government have made an important amendment, broadly in line with what the Minister promised in Committee. He has, therefore, made a measurable improvement to the Bill.
I still have doubts as to whether the Minister has wholly squared the circle, as I think he put it in Committee, in that I suppose it will still be necessary to demonstrate by evidence that there was such a victim. That will place upon the police some requirement to prove that there was somebody there and that the somebody was not just a figment of an overheated imagination. So the presence of the victim in court may on occasion be a necessary part of the process of obtaining a conviction under the clause as amended. I am bound to say that I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing. There will be many cases where evidence of this kind which obtains convictions will act as a strong deterrent to behaviour of the kind that the clause is designed to catch.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has a very good point. I am sure that he will accept that where the police can find a suitable person to come forward, a robust person who is not likely to be intimated by others, they will wish to produce such a person to the court. The point that we are really getting at here is that some people are fearful of the consequences of giving evidence. That is the heart of the matter.

Mr. Maclennan: That is right. That is why the Minister was sensitive to the need to try to avoid a situation in which a conviction could not be obtained without the evidence of the victim. The Minister has made an appreciable move. I welcome it, and I do not propose to seek to divide the House on the amendment.

Mr. William Cash: Having had experience of a peace convoy and its activities in and around my constituency in Stafford, where a considerable amount of alarm was caused to the local community and to individuals, I strongly welcome this amendment, which has been given careful consideration by the Government. I am sure that the chief constable of Staffordshire, who has helped to work out proposals which would enable these measures to go through, will be equally pleased, as will my constituents.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It falls to me now to propose whether new clause 1 be pressed. Perhaps I can comment very briefly on what my hon. Friend has had to say.
I cannot see that the Government's amendments are vastly better than new clause 1, but I accept, of course, that, with the benefit of parliamentary counsel, which was not available to the Police Federation when I drafted new clause 1, the Minister is likely to be better advised.
I was for my sins chairman of the Noise Council while Minister at the Department of the Environment, a task that I think my hon. Friend took on himself somewhat later.

I also drafted, or was the Minister responsible for drafting, much of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, carried through by the successor Government when we lost office. I am conscious of the limitations that it imposes on those who wish to bring actions for noise nuisance. I subsequently became president of the Association of Environmental Health Inspectors and discussed with its members on many occasions their difficulty in enforcing that law. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) was quite right in saying that it is sometimes very difficult to find an environmental health inspector on a Saturday evening when much of the nuisance occurs.
There is a problem here, and my hon. Friend the Minister genuinely accepted it. I understood the reservation expressed from the Opposition Front Bench about it. I would have thought, however, that at least in some cases the phrase "disorderly behaviour within the hearing"—the words in this clause—would catch at least some of the worst forms of musical noise that are persistently directed at people and cause distress.
I hope that my hon. Friend will look into the matter seriously. I think that I can say that the police service will be anxious to co-operate with him, because one is conscious of the fact that there is unlikely to be legislation of this scope again for some years. We might as well deal with it now as wait for what could be a decade or more to have another vehicle as apt as this one to tackle the problem. So I hope that my hon. Friend will press on seriously with his consultations with the police to see if he can produce a solution before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend agree that the very last thing that the police—or, for that matter, the public—want is for the police to be embroiled in neighbours' disputes and that this is to be avoided at all costs?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I was going to say that at the end of my remarks but my hon. Friend allows me to say it now. The police dislike being dragged into arguments about whether music is noise or music. Some may think that Beethoven is noise; others may think that bop is noise. There is a problem here, and definition is a tricky matter. However, it may be possible for the Minister to come up with some solution before the Bill concludes its processes through the House.
I have one technical point to make to my hon. Friend in respect of Government amendment No. 12. He sought to deal with my intervention and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). May I try again to explain what is bothering us? If I were to put up in my back window a most offensive notice which was provocative to my immediate neighbour looking through his back window, that could certainly qualify as behaviour which was caught by this clause.
The note that my hon. Friend very courteously passed to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and me contained the advice that all the affronted person had to do was to step outside his house. Then, if he could see the notice displayed in his neighbour's window, the offence would have been created. Alas, with back-to-back houses, particularly when one is ten storeys up, if I were to step outside my house in such a fashion as to be able to see that offensive notice, I would immediately fall a considerable distance and break my neck in the process. The only way


that I can step outside is through my front door, and from my front door, by definition, I cannot see what is visible through my back window.
This is a simple practical problem. I know that my hon. Friend, in his diligent manner, will address it, and I look forward to his taking care of it in another place.
The Government have the balance right between not reintroducing sus and avoiding the practical problems of the police being unable in all circumstances to provide a victim who is willing to come to court. It is because I think that the Government have the balance right that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause in favour of the amendment of the Government.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Marlow: May I say a few words on my amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. We will come to the hon. Member's amendment in due course. We have already discussed it.

New Clause 3

ABUSE OF UNION FLAGS

'Any person who uses the union flag in any procession or demonstration the purpose of which is to stir up hatred against a racial group in Great Britain or at which such hatred is likely to be stirred up shall be guilty of an offence.'.—[Mr. Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in clause 12, in page 8, line 4, at end insert
'or if its intention is to incite racial hatred'.

Mr. Lawrence: The name of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) ought also to appear as supporting new clause 3, but by a printing error his name appears on the marshalled list as supporting amendment No. 1.
One of the most pernicious and objectionable kinds of public disorder that is too often perpetrated today is public disorder connected with racial hatred. This is particularly objectionable, because in our multiracial society an increasing number of people who come from races not indigenous to the United Kingdom are easly offended, hurt and distressed by manifestations of this kind. It is to deal with that matter that part III of the Bill has been particularly and importantly created. It deals with a whole range of despicable offences that cause racial hatred.
One of the most sickening and offensive manifestations of racial hatred is when the National Front and its satellite organisations march through the streets carrying the Union flag, as though the people of Great Britain approve of that kind of racialism, or any racialism, as though the people who gallantly fought under the Union flag in the second world war against fascism have relented of their activity and now favour what some of them laid down their lives to oppose.
It is difficult to think of a more insulting abuse of decent society than to have racially hateful processions being swathed in the honour and dignity of the Union flag. In order to avoid the kind of distress that is caused not only to racial minorities but to every decent citizen in this

country, it is necessary to take more action than is available under part III of the Bill. Unfortunately, we do not seem now to respect the flag, or to encourage respect for it, as we ought to do. Those of us who have the privilege from time to time of going to the United States cannot help but notice that every office of state and that every office of public administration has, by the desk, the United States flag. Hardly any activity of a public kind in the United States takes place without some reference to, or some prayer directed to, their union flag.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: They do not have a queen.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend points out that they do not have a queen, but makes the fact that we do not have such respect even worse because, in a sense, the Union flag is an embodiment of the monarchy and a manifestation of the monarchy, for which we in this country have so much respect.
As long as there is no special provision to deal with abuse of the flag, such abuse will continue. So will the dissatisfaction and distress of decent British citizens and racial minorities whom we in this place have to protect. As long as no offence arises from such abuse, distress will needlessly be caused. My amendment will remedy that defect in our law. It will encourage respect for the Union flag. It will restore some degree of decency to political demonstrations, which we must, of course, tolerate and perhaps encourage in this country, but which often get out of hand.
Manifestations of public disorder are dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. A provision that specifically makes it an offence to abuse the Union flag will have the additional virtue of weakening the public persona of that most repulsive of all political groups, the National Front, and its satellite organisations.
5.45 pm
As for amendment No. 28, under the Bill, conditions on public processions can be imposed by a senior police officer in certain circumstances. He can do so if he reasonably believes, first, that a procession may result in serious public disorder; secondly, if it may result in serious damage to property; thirdly, if it will cause serious disruption to the life of the community; and, fourthly, where the purpose of the organisers is the intimidation of others. That is all very praiseworthy and welcome, and sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will support provisions that deal with matters of that kind, but my complaint is that the line has been unnecessarily drawn at that point.
Where the purpose of the organisers is the intimidation of others, it is most sensible that a limitation should be placed upon processions, in certain circumstances, by senior police officers but, alas, that restriction is limited to two kinds: intimidation that compels somebody not to do something that he has a right to do, such as going to work, and intimidation that compels others to do something that they have a right not to do, such as not to go to work. However, the amendment does not deal with intimidation for the purposes of inciting racial hatred, which is a particularly unpleasant form of intimidation. Why is it not dealt with? Racial hatred is dealt with in part III of the Bill. Racially insulting matter may not be published or distributed, or possessed with a view to publication, and words or gestures that are racially hurtful may not be used in a public place. However, one cannot


stop a procession or impose conditions upon a procession whose purpose is to incite racial hatred. That is quite an important and glaring hole in the Bill.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that on two occasions during the 1970s under the existing law conditions were attached to marches of the National Front through the Highfields area, an area where many Asian people live? Under the existing law, therefore, there is a measure of control that will be extended by the Bill. Does my hon. and learned Friend think that that is sufficient, or would he go even further?

Mr. Lawrence: I am pleased to hear from my hon. and learned Friend that from time to time such a limitation is indeed imposed. Clause 12 either consolidates and clarifies the existing law, which is one of the purposes of the Bill, or it adds something to the existing law. It contains no mention of the very power to which my hon. and learned Friend has referred. If there is no mention in this consolidating, explanatory and extending measure of a power that already exists, it might be taken that that power no longer exists. That seems to me to present some kind of danger.
Irrespective of whether my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) is right, the fact remains that clause 12 gives senior police officers powers to impose conditions on public processions when there is intimidation. However, it makes no sense to restrict the kind of intimidation which can be limited, or to exclude an especially repulsive form of intimidation—intimidation which is intended to incite racial hatred. Therefore, for clarification and simplication, if not for the extension of the existing law, all senior police officers in any threatened part of the country should have clearly in mind what the law is. The law should be extended so that all of the examples referred to by my hon. and learned Friend will apply generally throughout the country and not just within the police authority to which he referred.
It appears eminently sensible to extend clause 12(1)(b) to read:
the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do or if its intention is to incite racial hatred.
For that sensible reason, I hope that I have the support of all hon. Members.

Mr. Greville Janner: First, may I draw attention to the misprint on the Amendment Paper. I had intended that my name should appear under that of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and not under that of "Mr. Secretary Hurd" as he is described in the amendment underneath. That is entirely due to a printing error.
Happily, there are occasions when hon. Members, who disagree profoundly on many issues, come together in an attempt to preserve and extend those basic decencies which lie at the root of democracy and which allow us to disagree as freely as we do without violence and usually without ill will. I am pleased to support the efforts of the hon. and learned Gentleman both in connection with new clause 3 and amendment No. 28.
New clause 3 deals with the Union flag. It is an obscenity that those who would stir up racial hatred and ill-will, who are basically devoted to the philosophy of

Hitler and Mussolini, who regard fascism as their creed and "Mein Kampf" as their bible, should wrap themselves up in the Union flag as the symbol of their despicable organisations.
The campaign of fascists and Nazis—whether they call themselves the National Front or the National party—is aimed against blacks, Asians, Jews or any other minority. It is wrong that, in our law, they can freely use the Union flag, the symbol of our democracy and our decency, to precede them in their parades.
Some of us remember the Mosley marches in Ridley road. Some of us emerged from the armed forces to find that the philosophy which we had been rallied to fight against was using the Union flag as its banner. I served as a war crimes investigator in Germany and came back to find fascists using the Union flag in their parades. It is undoubtedly a source of great unhappiness to those who are proud of our democracy and to whom the flag is a symbol to defend.
I hope that new clause 3 will be accepted. It does not represent a new effort by the hon. and learned Gentleman or me. I have before me a copy of Hansard for 3 February 1982. Similar discussions took place then, but unfortunately the Government declined to accept the amendment. There was no vote on it and it faded into the mists of the past as one of those worthy motions which did not receive the assent of the House. I hope that will not happen again.
Amendment No. 28 is allied to new clause 3 and it is a happy decision to take them together. The amendment is specifically aimed at making clear beyond doubt, manifest beyond peradventure, that those who march with the intention of inciting racial hatred will be in breach of the law and should be dealt with by the authorities. Unfortunately, the freedom which we cherish and which we do not like to impede in any way is used too often by those who would destroy it and attack the decent and happy lives of our citizens. We are concerned only with the prevention of the abuse of freedom. It is a poignant, vicious and too common evil to use the freedom in our decent democracy deliberately to stir up racial hatred. That is the intention of marches and demonstrations in areas where black people live or, as in Leicester, where Asian people live.
I remember a march one Saint George's day during a general election campaign. The candidates of all of the decent parties—which means all parties other than the National Front and the National party—went to the chief constable and asked him to place a restriction on a march which would clearly cause ill-will, unrest and no small danger to the police whose unhappy job it was to try to preserve the peace of a city in the face of deliberate disruption.
When the chief constable decided to allow the march to continue, I concluded that the law was too weak and that it was wrong to leave such a decision in the hands of the chief constable. There was, inevitably, a battle and the police were in the centre. A vast number of police were doing their best to preserve the safety of our citizens at great cost and risk to themselves and at great cost and risk to ratepayers. A breach of the peace, which should never have been permitted, occurred.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) said that it is possible to place restrictions or bans on such demonstrations under the existing law. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton that the law


is not clear enough and that the guidance given to chief constables is not manifest. It would be wrong to amend the existing law without specifically including the intention to incite racial hatred.
I hope that that proposition will unite the House and that the discussions which are going on on the Government Front Bench are intended to ensure that the Government agree to the amendment so that there is no need to rally the troops and press it to a Division. I anticipate that all of the Opposition parties who sit on this side of the House will agree to the amendment. I know that the Government willingly adhere to the principle and hope that they will accept the amendment.
In advance of the attacks, which I know will be made on those of us who support the new clause and the amendment, by the National Front and other fascist and Nazi organisations, may I say that there is no desire to restrict the decent expression of free speech. There are, however, certain restrictions in any society. We are not allowed to engage in defamation, libel or slander. We are not allowed to speak treason or to incite violence. There are limits on our freedoms so that we may live together in decency and dignity.
At present, the restrictions are not great enough when applied to those who would remove the freedom of others to live in equality, irrespective of their race, creed or ethnic origin. We are here concerned only to restrict the freedom of fascist and Nazi organisations and racist bodies to stir up hatred in demonstration, march and by use of the Union flag. I strongly hope that the Government will accept the new clause and the amendment.

6 pm

Mr. Spencer: I hope that the Government will be able to consider amendment No. 28 further. The lesson to be learnt from a study of public order in the past few years is that what is tolerable at one time is utterly intolerable a few years later and justifies the intervention of the criminal law. Recognition of that fact has led to the Bill, and the extension of police powers to attach conditions to marches which were not to be found in the Public Order Act 1936.
We must ask whether the Bill goes far enough. The Select Committee said that an amendment such as amendment No. 28 had two faults—first, that it was impracticable because it introduced a test which did not raise a justifiable issue and, secondly, that it would lead to the prohibition of marches by certain political groups. Those objections seemed valid to the Select Committee at the time, but I should like to consider them in turn.
Does anybody think that the test would be impracticable? Does anybody think that a National Front march through the Highfields area should not attract the intervention of the criminal law? What is so fine and nice about the application of the test in Highfields and countless other areas in large cities? I do not regard it as a matter of nicety—I regard it as being as plain as a pikestaff.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. and learned Friend's argument is extremely valid and is surely answered in clause 17 and, no doubt, others. In clause 17, precisely the type of judgment which was previously objected to is required. It requires somebody to decide whether the publishing and distribution of written matter is intended to cause or provoke racial hatred. There seems therefore to

have been a shift in the approach to practicability since the Select Committee reported, and I am grateful to the Government for it.

Mr. Spencer: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. The existing law requires that there is a reasonable belief that serious public disorder will ensue. Acting under that provision, the police in Leicester have twice attached conditions to marches. That shows how closely linked are the concept of causing serious public disorder and the intention to cause racial hatred. In practice, it is almost impossible to isolate the two. We must now recognise that the law should be specific.
The Select Committee's argument that an amendment such as is proposed might prohibit marches by certain political groups is invalid. It said that the amendment would automatically prohibit certain political parties from processing publicly because of their notoriety and because their views constitute an insult and a provocation to various communities. It is quite right—their views do constitute an insult and a provocation, and their very presence inspires such feelings. If marches have that effect, the matter must require further consideration. I invite the Government to say that, upon better reflection, the reasons which seemed good to the Select Committee have at best worn thin and at worst should be rejected.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The anomaly of my speaking as a representative of Northern Ireland on a Bill which does not apply to the north of Ireland is that, if ever there were two amendments or new clauses which should apply to Northern Ireland, these are them.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) spoke emotively and effectively of the Mosley marches in Ridley road. I ask him to remember that I have such experiences nightly as, where I live, there are people who engage in fascist activities each night. From 1 to 26 April, 79 people who happened by birth to be Catholic by religion were burnt out of their homes simply because they were Catholic. Over the same period 50 policemen were burned out of their homes by those same people because they earned their living as policemen.
That, in any man's language, is fascism. It is fascism equal to that referred to in the Mosley marches. We could coin a phrase in relation to the type of fascism we see in the north of Ireland, to which this legislation does not apply. We could see a new type of fascism emerging which could best be described by saying that it is accompanied by a bible in one hand and a petrol bomb in the other.

Mr. Reg Freeson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the links are even closer than that? There is evidence of links between the National Front and associated groups in this country and certain extremist Protestant groups in Northern Ireland. In some instances those links lead to suspected gun and ammunition running from this country to Northern Ireland to assist extremist groups such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. I can confirm his point.
Court records, show that members of the National Front have appeared before the courts in Northern Ireland charged with this type of fascist activity, centring on threatening people in their own homes, backed up in a


cowardly fashion by petrol bombs. They are also accused of attacks upon the families of police officers in their own homes. The irony and ambiguity are there. This legislation is very much needed within Northern Ireland, yet it does not apply there. Indeed, as someone who wishes to see the peaceful reunification of the Irish nation I would be tempted to ask for a definition of "Great Britain" in this new clause. If ever an amendment were needed in the part of Ireland where I live, it is this.
It is sad and tragic when, from the hour one is born, and as one grows up, one sees the flag that most hon. Members and I would look upon with respect—the Union flag—hoisted on broomsticks and used as a means of incitement and intimidation against another section of the community for seven months of the year.
There is a mirror image of fascism in Northern Ireland. On one side we have that which avows its loyalty to this Parliament, this Government and the British Crown. They used to call themselves Unionists. I do not know what they will call themselves in the future. Every time they hoist the Union flag on a broomstick and use it as a means of incitement within my community they are behaving in a fascist way and in a way which should come under the influence of this new clause. That is also reflected by another section of the community. As someone who honestly wishes to see the reunification of Ireland, when I see the Irish flag used to insult those who are Unionist and Protestant, my blood boils. That is the type of racial incitement covered by this new clause. That is the type of fascist problem we are dealing with in Northern Ireland.
It is an anomaly that I, as a Northern Ireland representative, am debating something which does not apply to Northern Ireland, where it is most needed. On the Benches behind me we should have those who represent the Unionists, but they dare not come here even to hear the debate.
On amendment No. 28, anyone who has been following the problems in Northern Ireland would realise that the prohibition of marches is very relevant. For the next three or four months, until the end of October, Ministers who represent the Government in Northern Ireland, I as a Northern Ireland representative, and every person living in Northern Ireland face 2,000 more marches. One hundred and eighty six of those marches are controversial. We have seen what has happened in two of them. Is it not time that we started to look at the problem in Northern Ireland and at the way in which the marching season is allowed to dominate not just the lives of the ordinary people but the whole political process. One could almost say that for seven months of the year politics goes into abeyance while everyone—Unionist, Nationalist or whatever creed—is allowed to trail his coat up and down the streets of Northern Ireland causing inconvenience to everyone, enormous expense to the taxpayer and great danger to everybody who lives in those areas and to the people who have to police them.
It would be remiss of me if I allowed the debate to continue without reminding the House of the anomaly that new clause 3, amendment No. 28 and the Bill do not apply to Northern Ireland. The things I have mentioned are happening in Northern Ireland. The term "Great Britain" is used in an anomalous way in new clause 3. Is it not time that we looked at that type of developing and rampant fascism? There is no means of dealing with it. Those

marches continue year after year, costing millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, yet we bring down the blinkers. The usual type of myopia creeps in and we put it to one side by saying, "It is only Northern Ireland." The right hon. Lady the Prime Minister once reminded people under questioning that the north of Ireland was as British as Finchley. God help Finchley.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I wish that the Bill applied to Northern Ireland, but it does not. This morning in a police station in Northern Ireland, which shall be nameless, I saw what was left of the possessions of three young policewomen who had been subjected to petrol bombing. Those possessions were gathered in half a dozen black plastic bags. There were photographs of their loved ones, a charred badminton racket, a couple of pairs of gym shoes and all the artefacts of the life of those young women, as they had been living peacefully in their flat doing their duty as police officers. Of course, those who threw the petrol bomb which intimidated those women out of their homes were the same people who carry the Union flag. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is right to make his protest against that.
I am glad that the leaders of the other Northern Ireland parties, who unhappily are not here, have very responsibly denounced the attacks on the homes of the police. I am pleased to say that there is some evidence that those attacks are diminishing.
I understand very well what the hon. Gentleman has said about the marches still to come. However, he illustrated the problem of the amendment. No one could claim that the use of the Union flag in Northern Ireland, in the distressing circumstances I have just described, is strictly directed to the incitement of racial hatred. It may be religious or political, but I doubt whether it is strictly racial and that is the purport of the new clause and the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman illustrated another problem. He knows, as well as I do, that occasionally the tricolour of the Irish Republic is used—I will not say in an equally repugnant fashion, but in a manner which certainly incites other people in Northern Ireland. I have had the distressing personal experience of knowing that one man, carried to his funeral in a coffin which bore the flag of southern Ireland—although within our own country—accompanied by hooded men who were members of Sinn Fein or worse, carrying weapons and firing them into the air, said that his aim in life was "killing Protestants". The flag of the Irish Republic was used in just as obnoxious a fashion as the Union flag is used.
That is the technical problem that I face. If the new clause were passed, it would have all my sympathetic support, but I am not sure whether we would be right to say that only one flag should be banned from use in a demonstration. All flags, whatever they are—American or German flags, swastikas, fascist or Communist flags—if they are used to incite the hatred and harassment that we seek to deal with, are the artefacts of violence, irrespective of whether they are the Union flag or any other.
Therefore, the House must be careful before it imputes an intention to the flag itself. The intention lies in the hearts and minds of the people, not in the piece of cloth. Although I understand—I am sure that the House will,


too—and largely support the intentions of the new clause, technically there are many problems in passing it as it stands.

Mr. Clive Soley: It is helpful to have the benefit of a speaker from the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) always speaks powerfully. Those who remember his maiden speech will recall the eloquence and force with which he made his remarks, and he did so again today. We must be grateful to him for that.
I think—indeed, I hope—that everyone in the House will be sympathetic to the ideas and intentions behind the new clause and the amendment. I suspect that I can say with certainty that the Minister will be, too, because, to be fair to him, in Committee, particularly on part III of the Bill, on racial hatred, he was very good and showed his willingness to accept amendments from us and to insert some himself, which strengthened the offences that most of us are anxious to stamp out.
There is a problem of definition. For example, the Conservative party uses the Union flag at its conferences from time to time. Although a conference is not a demonstration, if a person used a Union flag outside and made comments that were seen as racialist, that party or organisation would be in trouble. I take the view that no political party should ever use the flag of the country because, in doing so, it tries to take unto that party the national identity of the country. I do not believe that one can legitimately do so. I can see that there is a problem of definition, but I ask the Minister to take away and look at the two amendments to see whether they can be incorporated in the Bill. There is a powerful argument for the wording and intentions behind them.
I remember, as many of us will, how, in the 1950s and 1960s, many black people from the Caribbean used to put, with pride, the Union flag on their cars, carry the Union flag, and speak highly of it. It was only after the flag was taken over by various racialist organisations and used to flaunt in their face in an offensive manner that that practice began to fade out among the ethnic minority groups, especially black people from the Caribbean.
As I suspect the Minister will tell us, some aspects of the problem are already covered by part III. Clause 19 says:
A person who uses in a public place or at a public meeting words or gestures which are threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if he intends hatred against a racial group in Great Britain".
If a person carrying a flag was doing other things, in words or gestures, which showed racial hatred, one could argue that the two points that the amendments seek to deal with are already dealt with in that clause.
Amendment No. 28, in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), changes the position inasmuch as it applies to processions. The Minister might like to tell us whether he thinks that the wording of clause 19 covers the circumstances referred to by my hon. and learned Friend and perhaps also by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
I ask the Minister not to reject the amendments out of hand. They put powerful arguments, which we touched on in Committee. If the Minister argues that the matter is already covered by the Bill, he will have to demonstrate to the House that clause 19 does the job. If he says that

that is not so, there is a strong argument for him to look at the amendments while the Bill is going through the House of Lords, and perhaps table amendments later if he feels that that is appropriate.

Mr. Cash: I share many of the sentiments expressed on both sides of the House about this provision. I await with interest what the Minister has to say on the subject.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, there is no doubt that no flag should be used to incite racial hatred of any description. I would consider voting for the new clause in a Division if what the Minister said did not satisfy us and matched up to the sentiments that have been eloquently expressed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The debate initiated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has taken, for me at any rate, a substantial turn. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will recall that we debated such issues in Committee. We debated an amendment that was akin to amendment No. 28, grouped with new clause 3, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. We negatived the amendment after a fairly full discussion of the complexities involved in inviting the police service to seek to interpret the situation in which they become involved in making such a judgment.
I remind my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton that this is the nexus of the public order problem, where the police are seeking to take a view on a situation that could be fluid, and have to decide whether it would be wise to intervene for this or that reason to prevent greater mischief. This is an emotive and powerful issue. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken with feeling. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) all did so. The contribution by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was relevant to the discussions that we are having, although the Bill does not apply to the Province that he so proudly represents. It is vital to hear a point of view that is as cogent as his.
In dealing with these matters, we are seeking, at the extremity, to avoid the major provocation, which, collectively, we all seek to prevent. In Committee, we tried to improve and tighten the conditions under which we are taking action on public order.
There is a significant difference between new clause 3 and amendment No. 28. New clause 3 requires that the Union flag should be a provocation. I hate to say "provocation", but that is the impression that is given. I suspect that that is a broader concept. On the other hand, amendment No. 28 appears to include major mischief that is the consequence of action being taken which could result in racial difficulties of one sort or another—intimidation, the creation of racial hatred and so on.
I must remind the House—this was touched on by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer)—that this issue was substantially discussed both in the Select Committee's report and in the Government's White Paper published last year. The report states:
Assessment of the likelihood of a breakdown in public order remains a relatively technical matter upon which the chief officer of police may pronounce. The likelihood of a procession stirring up racial hatred or intolerance is a more difficult test to apply.


A measure which rested on the judgment that incitement or intolerance was likely to be caused would present insuperable problems of enforcement and could easily backfire by creating martyrs for free speech out of groups whose policies and activities, having been subjected without hindrance to the judgment of the electorate have been decisively rejected.
That is the type of problem to which the Select Committee drew our attention, and we reflected that concern in the preparation of the Bill.
6.30 pm
Likewise, in our White Paper on the review of public order law, paragraph 6.4 on the Union flag states:
In the course of the review of public order law it has been suggested to the Government that the use of the Union Flag should in some way be restricted. This suggestion reflects concern at the use of the national flag by extremist right-wing groups. The Government considers this use of the flag deeply offensive, and believes that most people share this view. But it has proved impossible to devise a provision which defines satisfactorily those organisations or individuals who should be allowed to use the flag or those occasions on which its use would be permitted. Accordingly the Government has concluded that it is not practicable to try to legislate to control the use of the flag.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton seeks primarily to deal with that particular provision through new clause 3. It is probably not as significant in terms of public order, of controlling racial incitement and racial difficulties as amendment No. 28.
The substantive mischief seems to be addressed by amendment No. 28. I recognise the concern felt on both sides of the House about marches where the intention is to intimidate others, especially ethnic minorities, and that, perhaps, in clause 12 our definition of "intimidation" may be unduly tied to the concept of coercion, as, indeed, it is. We talked a great deal about that in Committee. That limitation is perhaps something which we should be prepared to reconsider and, in particular, to discuss with the police.
I cannot be so welcoming to new clause 3 about the use of the Union flag. I suspect that an amendment penalising the use of the flag in a procession the purpose of which is to stir up racial hatred would probably already be subordinate to amendment No. 28. The real mischief is not the misuse of the flag, but marching to stir up hatred or deliberately to put whole communities in fear. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend also considers that to be the problem.
I shall certainly reconsider the issue in relation to amendment No. 28, despite the fact that it was talked out in Committee where we felt that we had reached a consensus. I am minded to do so because of the range of expressions put to the House, and I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would agree to accept that advice in relation to his amendment.

Mr. Lawrence: To some extent I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his undertaking, which will be most welcome, but may I take the opportunity to say that this might not have happened had it not been for the enthusiastic support for the new clause and amendment which has been voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially those representing Leicester constituencies. I am grateful for that.
Perhaps I might be permitted to attempt to strengthen the Minister's elbow with the following observations when he tries to imbue those who are about to reconsider the

matter with the good sense behind the inclusion of amendment No. 28. The objection raised by the Select Committee to such provisions because they might automatically prohibit political groups cannot possibly apply where we are merely giving a power to a senior police officer to consider whether it is appropriate to impose a condition on a march. That is not automatic prohibition of political marches or political parties. Therefore, that criticism falls.
The second criticism is that the measures are impracticable. Clearly that objection has now been superseded by the completely new approach which the Government have adopted, and which is welcome. In clause 17 they see no practical difficulty in creating an offence for:
A person who publishes or distributes written matter which … intends hatred against a racial group in Great Britain".
There is no impracticability about that measure. If there had been, it would not have been included.
In clause 18 the Government see no impracticability in applying such a restriction to the possession of racially inflammatory matter where a person intends
hatred against a racial group in Great Britain to be stirred up as a result of the publication".
The same applies to clause 19, where "words or gestures" create an offence if a person
intends hatred against a racial group in Great Britain to be stirred up".
It is nonsense for the Government to say that there is some impracticability about using the test in new clause 3 when they have said that there is no such impracticability about using it in those three provisions which relate directly to the same intention—to stir up racial hatred.

Mr. Giles Shaw: My hon. and learned Friend is stretching my credulity a bit far when he examines the judgments that can be arrived at in printed material on the one hand and a fluid public assembly on the other. The problem is the practicability of the fluidity of a situation.

Mr. Lawrence: It must be manifest to anyone with even the meanest of intelligence whether a publication is intended to stir up racial hatred, that a gesture or action is intended to stir up racial hatred, or that a march or procession is intended to stir up racial hatred. Those matters are not subtle. They do not require close attention with a magnifying glass or weighing up with scales. They are blatant, open perversions of what people consider to be ordinary decencies. To march past the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day with the Union flag, boasting about fascism and the National Front is a manifest perversion to which nobody should have the least difficulty in applying a practical test.

Mr. Cash: My hon. and learned Friend may care to draw the Minister's attention to the Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, which has been a source of considerable controversy. Does he recall that serious questions arise in relation to that Act, which may have implications in this context for the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the Minister's attention to that point. However, until I have studied it, I have nothing useful to add.

Mr. Soley: To assist the House, will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask the Minister to clarify his commitment? We understand that the Minister will


reconsider the words in amendment No. 28 and will, at some stage, insert them into the Bill. On the other hand, the Minister may just be reconsidering the matter. At some point the House will surely want to insert those words into the Bill.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Of course I assume that when my hon. Friend the Minister says that he is taking away an amendment to reconsider it, he intends to do something constructive and not just talk about it. It would be churlish to come to any other assumption. Certainly nothing that my hon. Friend the Minister has ever done would lead me to suppose that he intends to do nothing.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Perhaps I can respond to the invitation that has been conveyed to me by my hon. and learned Friend on behalf of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I said that if my hon. and learned Friend was good enough to withdraw amendment No. 28 we would take it away and discuss it with the police in the context of the Bill, as drafted, to see whether the Bill is adequate. If it is not, we will introduce an amendment. There will be a discussion about the amendment in relation to the conditions contained in clause 12, and we shall have to see whether the latter are adequate to deal with the problem highlighted by the amendment.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he thought there might be a problem of definition. There might be a problem if one accepts what my hon. Friend the Minister says about the difficulties of amendment No. 28, but of course I do not accept what he says. However, there can be no problem of definition with regard to new clause 3, because there is only one Union flag. I refer to the national flag, which is commonly, but wrongly, known as the Union Jack. Moreover, "Any person" means any person. If someone comes out of the Conservative party conference waving a flag in a despicable way, he should be as subject to the restrictions of the law as anyone else who does something grossly offensive with the Union flag. Whether the person involved is a Conservative does not matter; the same rule must apply. There is obviously no problem of definition, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not be unnecessarily deterred from considering the issue more fully.

Mr. Mallon: Is there not something slightly contradictory in restricting the terms of the amendment and the clause to racial hatred? For 65 years the same sort of hatred has been expressed in violence year after year in Northern Ireland. That hatred could not, strictly speaking, be defined as racial hatred. It could be defined as religious or political hatred, but the net result is the same. Such dangerous hatred results in great violence and bloodshed.
In Northern Ireland the concentration of violence and hatred that has gone on for 65 years has culminated in the past 17 years of extensive violence. Almost 3,000 people have died. That seems to be excluded from the Bill, and there is something contradictory about that. From Northern Ireland's point of view, it seems cynical to exclude all that on the ground that it does not come within the definition of racial hatred.

Mr. Lawrence: There may be something contradictory about it, but I have enough problems trying to get the Government to accept my limited and less all-pervasive proposal.

Mr. Janner: Perhaps I can ease one of the problems facing the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Minister. If amendment No. 28 is withdrawn on the basis that the Minister has implied, that he will positively reconsider it, and that reconsideration does not lead to the Government's acceptance of it, there is a distinct likelihood that a further effort will be made to reintroduce it in the other place. If the hon. and learned Gentleman saw fit not to press his amendment, we would not press it either.

Mr. Lawrence: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that there is no question of amendment No. 28 being withdrawn. It has not been moved, but is being discussed with new clause 3.

Mr. Lawrence: I had hoped that when my hon. Friend the Minister reconsidered amendment No. 28 he would not exclude the possibility of reconsidering new clause 3. I would feel happier about accepting his undertaking if he could give the tiniest sign that the abuse of the Union flag will also be reconsidered. I have no doubt that that issue will also arouse the concern of those in the other place. If that happens, it may well increase the amount of activity when the Bill returns to this House.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Mr. Lawrence: I shall not give way, as there are many other important matters to consider. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The House has discussed this issue several times, and most recently on 3 February 1982, when it debated the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. On that occasion we were again told that the Government were sumpathetic but that it would be premature to introduce such a measure into the Bill because a Public Order Bill would be presented to the House in due course. It was said that the matter was being considered in a much wider review and that instead of pre-empting any discussions on the point it would be better to leave it until later and not adopt a piecemeal approach towards improving the law. That time has now come. If that improvement is not made now, when will it be made, so that the ethnic minorities can be protected against such indecent activities? The excuses are getting a little thin. The objections raised hitherto seem to have even less foundation now.
I do not wish to be churlish, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his undertaking. However, if he could move just a little, almost imperceptibly, so that those of us who are very careful to discern movement can see some, and if he would agree to reconsider the Union flag issue, I should be most grateful. Its use is very hurtful and offensive to many people. On the basis of that most welcome undertaking, I shall not press the amendment or the new clause. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

RIOT

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after 'threaten', insert 'unlawful'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 20 and 21.

Mr. Shaw: The amendments flow from undertakings we gave in Committee to look further at the definition of violence in clause 8. Two criticisms were made of the definition—first, that it was wrong to refer to "violence justified by law", which appears in clause 8(2) and, secondly, that the definition of violence in clause 8(3) was rather cumbersome. We have moved to discharge our obligation fully under the first head. Under the second head, despite my best endeavours to find a more elegant phraseology, we have not been able to satisfy the recommendation. I hope that the House will regard the changes that we have made as suitable.

Mr. Cash: I believe, as I have done for a long time, that, to deal with violence during a riot, we need a provision analogous to section 24 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which deals with dispersal when requested by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary whose rank is not below that of chief inspector. However, in this context I state specifically that I would not expect the military to be involved, as they are in Northern Ireland. We face a potentially serious situation. Plastic bullets and so on may be used and innocent children may get caught up in a riot.
If a power of dispersal were made available which enabled people to take responsibility upon themselves to disperse—when a warning had been given, or when the police knew the framework within which they were operating when an incident appeared riotous—the public would have greater safeguards than they do at present. That power would provide an opportunity for a person to take a moment to reflect on the position and would provide a cooling-down period.
I hope that, when the Bill reaches another place, those matters will be taken on board. There are serious deficiencies in the law which will become apparent sooner or later, such as when an innocent person gets caught up in a riot but could have avoided it if a warning system were available, during the night or during the day, to allow him to get off the streets before the police moved in.
I received a lengthy letter from the Prime Minister on this point. I understand that some chief constables have reservations about it. The matter is by no means as clear-cut as has been thought. Some chief constables would favour such a provision and others would not. I should be grateful if the matter could be given further consideration as the Bill proceeds. I believe that the Riot Act 1714, which was repealed about 10 years ago, should have been replaced by a provision along the lines suggested.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the Minister of State, Home Office for fulfilling the undertakings he gave in Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 1, line 11, after `using', insert 'unlawful'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 2, after 'threaten' insert `unlawful'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'life' and insert '7 years'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, leave out '5' and insert '3'.

No. 11 in clause 3, page 3, line 4, leave out '3' and insert '2'.

Mr. Carlile: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee—a pleasure I missed with some disappointment—but I did follow its proceedings with awe, if not with total admiration. I know that the matters which I am about to raise were discussed then to some extent, so I propose to be brief.
The offence of riot provided for in clause 1 is subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, or a fine, or both. When the Bill's proposals were first mooted by the Government, we were told that it was intended to provide a scale of offences dealing with public order—a scale of decreasing seriousness, starting with riot, moving on to violent disorder, which was the next offence down, affray, and so on. One can understand the good sense of introducing a scale of offences to deal with a problem, but one would expect, reasonably and logically, a corresponding scale of sentences to deal with those offences. One would expect that the maximum sentence for the most serious offence would be the highest, that the sentence for the second most serious offence would be lower but in proportion, and so on.
The Bill provides for a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence of riot. There is an enormous drop to imprisonment for five years for violent disorder and for three years for affray. The relationship between the maximum sentence for riot and the maximum sentence for violent disorder—offences which may arise on the same set of facts—is distant indeed.
I recognise that we have already, at least in part, an independent Crown prosecution service and that within a few months the whole of England and Wales will be covered by an independent prosecution service. Hopefully, we can count on the good sense of the Crown prosecution service not to prosecute people for riot when they have not done something terribly serious. On the other hand, despite the good work that was done in Committee and particularly the concessions which the Government have been prepared to make on the definition of "violence", in respect of the definition of riot one is left with the possibility—this was canvassed widely in Committee—of relatively trivial behaviour falling within the offence of riot. In my view—it is also the view of many others—it is important that maximum sentences are proportionate to the conduct which is described in the offence.
If a riot takes place, and if a group of people acting either separately or together commit serious offences of personal violence against others, they can be charged with substantive offences of violence. We are used to heavy sentences, indeed life sentences, being available for offences including murder, rape, robbery, arson with intent to endanger life, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
If people are to be subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, they should be charged with a specific offence of personal violence which might justify a sentence of life imprisonment. Riot, as defined by the Bill, could not strictly be described as an inchoate offence, but it is an unspecific offence. I suspect that juries, being members of the public and knowing perhaps that the maximum sentence for riot is life imprisonment, would be extremely reluctant to convict people of such an unspecific offence as riot.
Will the Government consider whether it might be right to introduce a much lower maximum sentence than life imprisonment for the offence of riot? I believe that few judges would be tempted in any circumstances to pass a sentence of more than seven years imprisonment for an offence of riot. A seven-year sentence would be a proper maximum.

7 pm

Mr. Spencer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have evidence that juries have been loth to convict at common law for the offences of affray, unlawful assembly and riot where the maximum sentence is life imprisonment?

Mr. Carlile: The three offences which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned are ancient common law offences. They were developed by the common law over the centuries to deal with the changing exigencies of life. Juries on the whole have little knowledge of maximum sentences, especially for offences the origins of which are found deep in history. This offence of riot has been very much in the public gaze in recent months—indeed, in the past couple of years. I believe that someone on the jury will be bound to know what the maximum sentence is.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) knows that sometimes a little knowledge can be very dangerous, especially with juries. I fear for the efficacy of this offence before juries if the maximum sentence of life is retained.
Surely seven years is a perfectly proper and realistic maximum for this type of offence. If we are to have realistic maxima as a general principle, let us start with new offences which we lay down in Parliament. If in so doing we reduce the maximum sentence for riot from life to the right level of seven years, we still will not have the right sort of scale if we leave five years as the maximum for violent disorder and three years as the maximum for affray. A much more realistic scale which would meet the requirements of sentencing and what the judge has to do in court would be provided if the maximum sentence were three years for violent disorder and two years for affray.
I urge upon the Minister and the Government an important principle which I believe the judges share and in which the Government too should believe. Generally today, the sentence passed by the judge often bears little resemblance to the sentence to be served by the defendant. We should use the Bill as part of our journey along the road to a much more realistic and common-sense policy on sentencing, under which we should introduce maxima and judges should pass sentences which bear a much closer relationship to the reality of what happens to the prisoner after he walks down the step from the dock. I therefore urge the Minister to accept these amendments as reflecting a realistic and common sense view.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: A good deal of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was persuasive. My difficulty is that, on convicting a person, the only choice for the court is life imprisonment or a fine. That is what clause 1(6) says.

Mr. Alex Carlile: It is not really for me to correct the hon. Gentleman. It is, in fact, a maximum of life.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Anything up to life.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: That is not what the Bill says. I am glad to hear that confirmation from my hon. Friend the Minister. Despite the fact that clause 1(6) states
liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life or a fine or both
the word "liable" presumably covers the gradations.
I shall make only one other comment because I suspect that when the Bill goes before another place some of the judges will weigh in on this matter. My hon. Friend is conscious of that. Does it not follow that, if a court concludes that a life sentence is appropriate, at least 12 people will be liable to be given that sentence? The definition of riot is that 12 people must have been involved. No doubt a court could start off with a life sentence for the most serious rioter and go down through the gradations. However, I think that their lordships may well consider that point.
I do not share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that the jury would be less liable to convict if the maximum sentence was life. For all that, bearing in mind our experience over the years of the other place, it might be a good idea for my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that our amendments are not overturned in the other place.

Mr. Spencer: We now see the limp wrist of the alliance drooping pathetically in the breeze of public misgiving about public disorder. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) suggested that the maximum sentence for the new offence of violent disorder should be three years. That proposal is totally out of touch with the real world. In practical terms, any judge approaching the task of sentencing a person who commits that offence would have to regard the maximum as two years. It is rare that a judge is driven to conclude that the case with which he is dealing is the worst one possible to imagine and therefore justifies the maximum sentence.
As for affray, the proposal is even more absurd A maximum of two years is proposed, which, in practical politics, would give rise to a maximum sentence of about 18 months. Recently, we have had a number of cases of affray in which the sentences passed by the courts have been measured at between six and eight years. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery should be ashamed of himself—

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Mr. Spencer: —for putting his name to the amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I endorse the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). Again we see the alliance being soft on law and order. We must reject the amendment. If the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has any argument about scale,


he should argue that the sentence for violent disorder should be seven years and the sentence for affray five years.
What about juries who are afraid to convict a person for riot because a life sentence may be passed? There is no respectable academic evidence that juries have ever been afraid to convict in such cases, except when the death penalty was the result. In the multitudinous offences in the English system in which life imprisonment is the maximum sentence, no one has ever claimed that such a sentence has deterred juries from carrying out their duty. That argument does not hold water.
It is an insult to juries to suggest that they will somehow evade their responsibility because the maximum sentence for riot is life imprisonment. That suggestion is an insult also to the judges who examine the involvement of the accused, consider the degree of fault under the charge of riot referred to in clause 1 and set appropriate sentences. The purpose of a maximum sentence of life imprisonment is to give the judge the necessary flexibility to reflect, as he sees fit, on the degree of culpability of the person who breeches the law. It also reflects the feelings of horror and opprobrium attached to this offence by the general public. The maximum sentence should stay.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman has an argument, it is that the alternative to five years' imprisonment for violent disorder should be seven years and for affray it should be three years. The matter has been fully discussed in Committee, and I am sure that the public will join with Government Members in recognising that public order offences must be dealt with firmly and that judges should have the option to impose lengthy sentences of imprisonment. I oppose this silly amendment.

Mr. Giles Shaw: As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has reminded the House, this matter was fully discussed in Committee. I remind the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that we spent a lot of time debating the matter. The Law Commission recommended 10 years as the maximum sentence for riot, and in the White Paper published in May the Government reflected the Law Commission's view.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, a life sentence was passed at the Old Bailey which suggested that the 10-year maximum might not be sufficient for the worst cases. That case is now the subject of an appeal which is to be heard on 19 May, and the Government think it right to keep the position open until the appeal is heard. We shall, of course, study with care any judgment by the Court of Appeal and we will also listen carefully to the views expressed in Parliament. I note the views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will not divide the House on his amendment because we still have an open mind and a decision will depend on the Court of Appeal judgment.
On the other two amendments, the Law Commission recommended maximum sentences for violent disorder and affray of five and three years respectively, and those are the maxima in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. The invitation that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes to

us to reduce those is not an invitation that I could ask the House to accept because I know the views of my hon. Friends on the matter.
In its working paper the Law Commission originally suggested 10 years for affray and five years for unlawful assembly. The sentences recommended in its final report are a considerable reduction on the working paper proposals. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are dealing with major public order offences of great gravity. They are offences that give rise to anxiety and it is right that in the Bill there should be a significant tariff of sentences available so that the courts may offer the public the protection that they deserve.

Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was not with us in Standing Committee. He knows that we debated these matters at length and that the amendment that he has moved follows the spirit of the arguments put forward by me and by my hon. Friends. I would certainly not wish the Bill to reach the statute book with a life sentence for the offence of riot, especially the offence of riot as it is defined in this Bill. I might as well say it now, although I will say it later, that when this Minister of State makes a statement in good faith it is just that and I certainly accept it in that spirit.
In Standing Committee the Minister said that it was necessary from the point of view of the Government not to alter the Bill at this stage in the light of the sentence to which he referred. That was taken by us as meaning that once that matter—now very close—was out of the way, the Government would make a change. My hope and expectation is that when the Bill goes to the House of Lords an amendment will be moved from our Benches and I hope from the Government Benches to deal with this matter. I cannot say that I am happy to leave it like that, but I am content to do so in this case because the Government have got themselves on a hook.
I concur with the general drift of the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. We said the same thing during the debates in the Standing Committee, that we regard this as unique and not something to be repeated in any circumstances. Statutory sentences must be decided by Parliament for judges to follow, rather than decided by judges for Parliament to follow.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing in a serious way with what was intended to be, and is, a serious matter. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) and his junior thought this to be a matter upon which they could indulge in a little by-electioneering. That comes ill from two hon. Members, one of whom is an hon. and learned Member, from a party which has seen crime increase out of all recognition during its period of office; who cannot even keep the prisons in order, including prisons in the constituency, to my knowledge, of at least one of those hon. Members; and which cannot present the people of our towns and villages with a policeman on foot walking up and down the streets as part of their community. I could continue at some length to deal with the matter in the vein that they adopted. However, I shall not do that because I realise the importance of staying in order during this part of the debate.
7.15 pm
I share with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) the understanding that the Minister


of State says what he means and means what he says. I see a chink of light, in that this matter may be reconsidered in another place, especially after the case to which the Minister referred has been decided.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

VIOLENT DISORDER

Amendments made: No. 5, in page 2, line 11, after 'threaten', insert 'unlawful'.

No. 6, in page 2, line 14, after 'threatening', insert 'unlawful'.

No. 7, in page 2, line 16, after 'threaten', insert 'unlawful'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 3

AFFRAY

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 2, line 26, after 'threatens', insert 'unlawful'.

No. 10, in page 2, line 30, after 'the', insert 'unlawful'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 4

FEAR OR PROVOCATION OF VIOLENCE

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 3, line 8, leave out from 'if' to end of line 25 and insert

'he—

(a) uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or
(b) distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visiable representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 5

HARASSMENT, ALARM OR DISTRESS

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 3, line 32, leave out from 'if' to end of line 7 on page 4 and insert

'he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign of other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c) that his conduct was reasonable.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 19, at end insert—
'(8) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice in connection with the exercise of the power of arrest under subsection (5) of this section.
(9) Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall have effect as if references to a code of practice included references to a code of practice to which subsection (8) above applies.'.
Many of the arguments about the offence of disorderly conduct and the now amended clause 5 have already been rehearsed. Our major anxiety is about the manner in which the offence will be policed. There is the possibility that a mistaken interpretation of the offence and the way in which it should be dealt with could in some circumstances lead to another sus law. We have been worried about that all along in connection with this new offence and clause 5. Accordingly, we suggest in this amendment that the Secretary of State, in exactly the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, should issue a code of practice to the police to ensure that they are made extremely well aware by the Government and by the Home Office of the manner in which the Government intend them to police this offence and about the way in which they conduct themselves.
I hope the Government will see the advantage of issuing a clear statement of guidance to the police that that code of practice would enshrine. In those terms I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) moved this amendment. I fully understand the interest that is aroused about the use of the arrest powers in clause 5. We had substantial discussions about that in Committee. It is not our intention to publish a code of practice about this arrest power, because such a single arrest power does not justify such a code. It is our intention to issue guidance about its interpretation in the circular that we send to police forces about the workings of Acts, if and when the Bill becomes an Act.
If the hon. Gentleman withdraws the amendment, I shall write to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and set out the guidance contained in the general circular on the arrest powers. That will have the full description of the arrest power element that he wishes to be discussed, and it will be placed in the Library so that it becomes a published document. I will do that rather than publish the circular itself, as that will deal with many other issues that it would not be sensible to publish.

Mr. Smith: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what he said. It is an extremely helpful compromise that guidance should be given to protect the public and to facilitate the job that the police must do. There is considerable public concern about this, and the Opposition are also concerned. It is therefore right that such guidance should be made public in the way that the Minister has suggested.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in inviting the Minister to be sure that the document is placed in the Library before the Bill is considered in another place, just in case some people wish to comment upon it?

Mr. Smith: I echo the hon. Gentleman's anxiety and his keenness to ensure that the matter is available for public consideration by both Houses in advance of discussion in the other place. However, the Government may find that the timetable does not permit such a rapid placing of the document in the Library.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I fear that it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to expect that we should be able to give this guidance prior to the matter coming before the other place. The circular will be in draft before we are ready to issue it, and we shall have to bear in mind possible changes as the Bill goes through.

Mr. Smith: I accept the practical problems that face the Minister, but I also expect that their Lordships might wish to consider these matters during their consideration of the Bill. In the light of what the Minister has said, and given the extremely helpful content of his contribution, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 4, line 26 leave out from 'behaviour' to 'may' in line 27 and insert
', or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it'.

No. 16, in page 4, line 29 leave out from 'words' to 'may' and insert
'or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it'.

No. 17, in page 4, line 31 leave out 'threatening, abusive, insulting or'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 7

PROCEDURE: MISCELLANEOUS

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 9 leave out '2 to 4' and insert '1 to 5'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 66 to 68.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed that there is a curious smell in the Chamber which seems to be associated with food that has somehow wafted through the air-conditioning system. Can that be looked into, because if it persists it will be most unpleasant?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have detected it myself, and I shall have inquiries made.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I rise in an aroma of take-away.
These amendments are relatively straightforward. Clause 7(2) as drafted provides that clauses 2 to 4 create only one offence for the purpose of the rules against charging more than one offence in the same count or information. The offence in clause 5 can be committed either by using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or by the use of disorderly behaviour.
It is possible that a court will decide that two offences are thereby created and that an information charging someone with an offence would be bad for duplicity if it did not clearly indicate which conduct it was alleged the accused had committed. To guard against that eventuality amendment No. 18 extends clause 7(2) to clause 5 and also to clause 1 to avoid unnecessary argument in relation to any alternative element in the offence. The other amendments are similar and consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 5, leave out line 19 and insert

'In this Part—
dwelling" means any structure or part of a structure occupied as a person's home or as other living accommodation (whether the occupation is separate or shared with others) but does not include any part not so occupied, and for this purpose "structure" includes a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or movable structure;'.

No. 20, in page 5, line 20, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 27 and insert—
'"violence" means any violent conduct, so that—
(a) except in the context of affray, it includes violent conduct towards property as well as violent conduct towards persons,'.

No. 21, in page 5, leave out lines 33 and 34.

No. 22, in page 5, leave out lines 35 to 38.

Clause 11

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 37, leave out from 'notice' to 'notice' in line 39 and insert

'shall be given in accordance with this section of any proposal to hold a public procession intended—

(a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person or body of persons,
(b) to publicise a cause or campaign, or
(c) to mark or commemorate an event,

unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession.

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply where the procession is one commonly or customarily held in the police area (or areas) in which it is proposed to be held or is a funeral procession organised by a funeral director acting in the normal course of his business.

(2) The'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can take amendment (a) thereto, leave out
'(c) to mark or commemorate an event.'.
and Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

Mr. Shaw: The requirement to give advance notice under clause 11 as drafted applies to every procession unless, under clause 11(5), it is exempt because it is a procession commonly or customarily held or it is a funeral procession.
We had a full and interesting debate in Committee on whether clause 11 was too wide, and we undertook to consider whether we might redefine this requirement in such way as to exclude processions of no interest to the police, such as school crocodiles. That is the main effect of these amendments.
Instead of advance notice being required of all processions—except those caught by subsection (5)—advance notice will be required only of those types of procession set out in the amendment—namely, those intended to demonstrate support for, or opposition to, the views or actions of any person or body of persons; those publicising a cause or campaign; or those marking or commemorating some event. Consequently, organisers of any procession that has the sole aim of getting from A to B, such as crocodiles of schoolchildren or tourists following a guide, will not be required to give advance


notice. But those organising demonstrations of a political nature or processions with a wider purpose than movement from A to B will need to give notice.
The existing exemption for processions commonly or customarily held and funeral processions will be retained by virtue of the new subsection (1A) which replaces subsection (5). The reason for this is quite straightforward. If a procession is commonly or customarily held, the police will already be aware of it and have no need of advance notice. If the event is likely to give rise to problems, or the police want an update about this year's arrangements, they will get in touch with the organisers near the time.
These amendments also help to clarify that where a procession arises spontaneously in response to some event—I recall discussion of demonstrations arising out of a sense of grief or loss—no advance notice of it is required. This is achieved by the addition of the phrase
unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession.
at the end of subsection (1). Amendment No. 26 is consequential. This represents substantially the views that were expressed in Committee, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Soley: I acknowledge that to some extent the Government have moved, but we are still unhappy about the clause and the amendments that the Government have proposed. There are a number of reasons for that. We feel yet again the Government are making the mistake of having far too wide catch-all phrases in the Bill. For example, notice will be required if the object is
to mark or commemorate an event".
That is wide open and could catch just about anything.
If people choose to celebrate another person's birthday down the road by marching together as a group to award a bouquet of flowers, that would be caught by the Bill. I am puzzled as to why the Government have decided to introduce this in the manner that they have. It is an unnecessary extra catch-all phrase that is too wide to be justified.
Originally, it seems that the Government intended to get information about those processions that they thought would cause difficulty for the police and so on. They were really thinking about the 15 per cent. or so of processions that cause such problems. I am sure that the Government accept that the other 85 per cent. cause no problems of any kind. Even by their own standard, I am surprised that they find it necessary to introduce a phrase so wide as
to mark or commemorate an event",
as that is a catch-all phrase.
The Opposition are far from convinced that the case for giving notice has been made. We made the point in Committee that there was real doubt as to whether it was desirable for notice to have to be given. There is little evidence that such notice changes behaviour. In fact, most of the assemblies and processions pass off peacefully without trouble. Most people who organise processions give notice to the police. Even if we accept the case for giving notice, as we said in Committee, there is a strong argument that notice should be given not to the police but to the local authority.
7.30 pm
I do not wish to weary the House by going over the ground that was covered in Committee. However, I shall quote from the annual report of the Chief Constable of the

Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, Sir John Hermon. It will speed matters up if I simply quote from the relevant passages in that report. The Chief Constable states:
Earlier I referred to the grievous casualties suffered through acts of terrorism. I regret to report that 1985 was also a year in which the RUC experienced substantial public order problems. This subject is dealt with at some length in the body of my Report and I recommend its study to all interested organisations and individuals.
As an aside, I would hope that the Minister and his Department will consider this specific part of the annual report in some detail.
I wish to emphasise that the policy of the police in respect of parades and demonstrations is to seek responsibility and co-operation and to encourage dialogue and agreement with parade organisers.
That actually happens in most of the areas, most of the time.
Furthermore, despite impressions created to the contrary, I would point out that of the 1,897 loyalist parades and demonstrations policed by the RUC in 1985, only 2 were banned and 15 re-routed after unsuccessful attempts to reach agreement through negotiation.
I stress that only 15 marches were re-routed, because this is where the crunch comes in the chief constable's report in relation to the Bill. The Chief Constable continued:
The police are faced with making difficult judgements in sensitive situations. The decisions taken are genuine, professional police decisions and the law ought to be respected.
Whilst the police will always be responsible for the actual enforcement of the law in public order situations on the streets, it may perhaps be worth considering if responsibility for decisions on the holding and routing of parades should rest with an independent public tribunal.
I must stress here that the Chief Constable's report came out after we had passed the relevant amendments in Committee. The report is especially relevant to the Government's drafting of the Bill. The Government are still asking the police to take what the Opposition have always said would be seen as political judgments. That is precisely what has happened in Northern Ireland. It is precisely because the RUC was asked to take such judgments that it came into the front line. Although I am not suggesting that the problems in Northern Ireland will be repeated here, I would say that people will increasingly see the police as making political judgments concerning the route, the numbers and the timing of assemblies.
In such circumstances, I would warn the Government to listen carefully to what the Chief Constable of the RUC said. That difficulty does not exist here, but the Government should not continue to duck the point about the position in Scotland, where notice is given to a local authority. That process has worked very well and nobody has criticised that co-operation. Notice is given to the local authority and the authority seeks the co-operation of the police. The Government must realise that, at a time when the police are already being drawn into the party political debate, Ministers have come forward with an amendment which keeps the police in that position. I acknowledge the changes made in Committee, but I must say that these changes are not good for the police or for the public.
The Government have written into the amendment, because of the concern expressed by the Opposition and by the Minister during the Committee stage, that there is a need to give advance notice. The Government have added the words to amendment No. 23—and the Minister correctly stressed this—
Unless it is not reasonably practicable to give any advance notice of the procession.


I am a little worried about the word "any". That word could be interpreted in a court of law in a number of different ways. It may be interpreted in a loose manner, that it was not possible to give any notice, or it could be interpreted more tightly, that only 10 minutes' notice should be given. It may be said that someone should have telephoned or handed a notice to a police station only 10 minutes before the event.
As an example, I quote the case of the American bombing of Libya, which took place in the early hours of the morning. People feeling strongly about that event the next day, marched and demonstrated in many towns. It would be possible, as the Minister would argue, that the event was of considerable emotional importance and people should be allowed to demonstrate without notice being given. Yet, as I understand it under the amendment, it could be interpreted by a court that those people could not demonstrate as seven days' notice had not been given of the demonstration. The demonstration was not planned seven days in advance, but some notice could have been given. The trouble with the word "any" is that it could be anything between seven days and a couple of minutes.
I am sure that lawyers would be able to argue for a long time in courts of law as to the use of the word "any". It could mean that they were not required to give notice if the demonstration had not been planned seven days in advance. Whatever is regarded as reasonable in these circumstances becomes a matter for interpretation, whether it be three days, seven days or 10 minutes' notice. There seems to be a curious use of the phrase "any advance notice" and I would welcome the Minister's comments on that part of the amendment.
I am also a little unsure about the question of the posting of notice in the amendment. I do not wish to go ahead of matters now, but we must take account of the way in which notice must be given and that raises the question of notice posted in advance and what happens if that does not get to the police station.
I conclude by saying that the dangerous part of the Bill and the reason why we are still so unhappy with the new Government amendment is that we still do not think that the Government have correctly addressed the problem of achieving a balance between the democratic rights of the people to express their views on political, social, economic and other matters, and the need to keep public order. It seems that the Government are under-estimating the extent to which they are forcing the police into political decisions. The police are being forced into making political decisions and this only makes the waters less clear.
At times of acute economic and social distress—as today — when there is mass unemployment and uncertainty, there will always be demonstrations and assemblies as a means of expressing the anger and anxiety in society. If we try to deal with that by amending the clauses to the Bill which are as widely drawn as they are in paragraph (c) of amendment No. 23 or as loosely drawn in the amendment which includes the words "any advance notice", we will be creating powers which will not only cause problems for the police but will create problems of public order for the nation. At the end of the day, if the police try to exercise these powers, we cannot be sure that they will not trigger off the public order disturbances that people are seeking to avoid.
I would like the Minister to address us about the use of the word "any" in paragraph (c) of amendment No. 23 and to explain the line—
to mark or commemorate an event.
I would also ask him if he will at least guarantee to the House that he will take a long, hard look at the evidence given by the Chief Constable of the RUC so that the police in this country should have the same kind of powers as those enjoyed by the police in Northern Ireland.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I, too, read with great interest Sir John Hermon's report when it came out, and I have had the opportunity of discussing his thoughts with police officers in Northern Ireland and here. In a word, I think that he is mistaken.
I understand, of course, that in the peculiarly sensitive circumstances of Northern Ireland today, where for one reason or another there are attempts to embroil the police in the politics of the Anglo-Irish agreement, the police face some difficult dilemmas. It is interesting that the Chief Constable's report, which was written before the most poignant of those dilemmas arose, addresses a proper matter. I respect Sir John Hermon for having put his finger on the problem, but that is not to say that I agree with his conclusion.
I can only ask the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to accept—he has the advantage of having the report with him and I do not—that Sir John Hermon does not suggest that the matter should be put in the hands of a local authority. He is, as I understand it, suggesting some outside body. In present circumstances in Northern Ireland I cannot imagine anything worse than placing the responsibility to allow or not to allow marches in the hands of local authorities which are at one another's throats. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not trying to imply that the Chief Constable's report gives any support for the notion of local authorities being the arbiters.

Mr. Soley: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my quotation properly, he would know that I said that responsibility should be given to an independent body. He should bear in mind that I also said that Northern Ireland was not Britain. The system is working well in Scotland, and that is what he needs to address himself to, along with the fact that the police in Northern Ireland have been dragged into the party political arena.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: In the spirit in which we have addressed the Bill, I was seeking only to make sure that the hon. Gentleman was drawing no inference from Sir John Hermon's report that that responsibility should be a local authority function, although he properly cited the Scottish example in support of his proposition.
The police, with all their problems and difficulties, are by far the best people to make that decision. They are completely objective, impartial and experienced. Therefore, the responsibility should remain with them.
Let me say one further word about amendment (a). The Opposition seek to leave out paragraph (c). I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about birthday parties, and so on, but I do not think that he was pressing that seriously. It is precisely the events that we have seen commemorated in Northern Ireland which can frequently cause the problem. I notice that in the following paragraph (1A) the Government say:
Subsection (1) does not apply where the procession is one commonly or customarily held".


That opens the door to a wide number—probably the majority—of innocent processions of the kind about which the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee were concerned.
The Government have achieved a better balance in amendment No. 23 than they did in the original Bill. Indeed, they have got it just about right.

Mr. Hind: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on finding a good solution to a difficult problem. I must disagree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) for a number of reasons. First, the clause is designed to prevent public disruption arising for political reasons. In the majority of cases they are matters which are likely to raise temperatures in our society and cause trouble. It places a requirement on organisers of such political demonstrations to give notice to the police in their district. That is all that it is doing.
To suggest that an event which is
to mark or commemorate an event
should not be included in this definition would surely create a lawyer's paradise. My hon. Friend has set out to make sure that no lawyer's paradise is created by extensively defining the criteria under which notice of a demonstration or procession should be handed in to the police.
Paragraph (c) clearly covers the sort of situation where, for example, the National Front would wish to march through Brixton to celebrate the birthday of Adolf Hitler. That is surely something that we would wish the police to know about and, accordingly, be able to take action to prevent any attendant rioting or public disorder. There are other obvious examples of a more Left-wing nature, such as a march to celebrate the birthday of Karl Marx. Such matters all lead to considerations of public order. People who violently oppose a point of view may wish to demonstrate that on the streets with violence or other breaches of public order.
This is a sensible clause, tackling a difficult problem, and I commend it to my hon. Friends as one for which we should vote and give our full support to this evening.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I should like, with the leave of the House, to deal briefly with the points made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) gave the clue to why we are seeking still to include commemorative events. Any regular commemorative event, such as an Easter or Christmas procession or May day parade, will be exempted because customarily held processions are exempt, but to go further would create the loophole to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
Supporters here of Sinn Fein may call a procession and claim that rather than seeking support for their views they were merely commemorating Bloody Sunday or some other event. Loyalist marchers might claim that the purpose of their procession was merely to commemorate the Battle of the Boyne, and so on. A commemorative occasion as such cannot be divorced from the possible consequences to public order that would occur. Therefore, there is a case for including it and that is why I cannot favour amendment (a).
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about "any" notice. It is clearly a fact that under the clause, as he will know, such notice as would in the circumstances be practicable

should be given. Ultimately, if would be for the court to decide whether, under the circumstances, a day's notice could have been given. The importance of including this is that we have asked that, if possible, notice should be given. The hon. Gentleman has frequently and rightly drawn attention to the fact that for the vast majority of processions the police have been provided with full notice, after full discussions and arrangements are made in full agreement. That is the ideal situation.
There is a requirement here to allow for the spontaneous procession as a result of an accident or some other Tragedy which, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, could give rise to such a procession. That is certainly acceptable. We have no intention to resile from that. But if it is practicable to give any notice which is commensurate with the circumstances, that notice should be given.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the House and people outside whether, in the case of the American raid on Libya, a procession held the following day, say 12 hours after the event, would be a circumstance in which he would expect the law to say that notice must have been given, or is he saying that that would be a spontaneous event?

Mr. Shaw: I cannot hypothecate, but that is the kind of event giving rise to public opinion which is designed to be acceptable under the arrangements that we have proposed. We have provided for a response which is virtually immediate, and a matter of hours is virtually immediate. I would suggest that that would come within the definition of a spontaneous procession when notice cannot be given. But if the procession were a day and a half after the event, I would conclude that some notice should be given. I am sure that most organisers would wish that.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's third point about local authorities, we have already discussed this with the Association of District Councils, which objected strongly to it and wanted to have nothing to do with it at one time. It would have preferred the police to take that burden off the collective shoulders of the district councils. Wisdom would lie in that direction, but I am sensitive to the hon. Gentleman's point that the police should not be dragged in to make political decisions. Their responsibility is the public order consequence of what has been proposed, and that must be a decision for them.

Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 243.

Division No. 163]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Alton, David
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Caborn, Richard


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Barnett, Guy
Campbell, Ian


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Bell, Stuart
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clay, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Clelland, David Gordon


Blair, Anthony
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)






Coleman, Donald
Maclennan, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McWilliam, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Madden, Max


Craigen, J. M.
Marek, Dr John


Crowther, Stan
Martin, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dormand, Jack
Mikardo, Ian


Douglas, Dick
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby,)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Harry
O'Brien, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Park, George


Fisher, Mark
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Pavitt, Laurie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Forrester, John
Penhaligon, David


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter


Foulkes, George
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Prescott, John


Freud, Clement
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, W. E.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


George, Bruce
Richardson, Ms Jo


Godman, Dr Norman
Robertson, George


Golding, John
Rogers, Allan


Gourlay, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hancock, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rowlands, Ted


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Sedgemore, Brian


Haynes, Frank
Sheerman, Barry


Heffer, Eric S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Janner, Hon Greville
Stott, Roger


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kennedy, Charles
Tinn, James


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Torney, Tom


Kirkwood, Archy
Wainwright, R.


Lambie, David
Wallace, James


Lamond, James
Wareing, Robert


Leighton, Ronald
Weetch, Ken


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
White, James


Litherland, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Livsey, Richard
Wilson, Gordon


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Woodall, Alec


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McCartney, Hugh



McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. James Hamilton and


McKelvey, William
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Alexander, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ancram, Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bright, Graham


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brinton, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Baldry, Tony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Browne, John


Bellingham, Henry
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.





Buck, Sir Antony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Budgen, Nick
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Burt, Alistair
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Butterfill, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Key, Robert


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cash, William
Knowles, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Knox, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lamont, Norman


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian


Clegg, Sir Walter
Latham, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Lawrence, Ivan


Cope, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Couchman, James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Critchley, Julian
Lester, Jim


Crouch, David
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Dicks, Terry
Lightbown, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lord, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Neil


Fox, Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Franks, Cecil
Maclean, David John


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fry, Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Major, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malins, Humfrey


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Malone, Gerald


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maples, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Antony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gregory, Conal
Mates, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Mather, Carol


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Ground, Patrick
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hanley, Jeremy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hannam, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Miscampbell, Norman


Harris, David
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Harvey, Robert
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hawksley, Warren
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayes, J.
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Neale, Gerrard


Hayward, Robert
Needham, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Tony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick
 

Henderson, Barry
Onslow, Cranley


Hickmet, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hind, Kenneth
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hirst, Michael
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Pollock, Alexander


Holt, Richard
Porter, Barry


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Powley, John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Price, Sir David


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Irving, Charles
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey






Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Terlezki, Stefan


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rost, Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ryder, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Hon Thomas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waddington, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Silvester, Fred
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Speed, Keith
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spencer, Derek
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Raymond


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Woodcock, Michael


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

8 pm

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 7, leave out lines 3 to 10 and insert—
'(3) Notice must be delivered—

(a) to a police station in the police area in which the procession is intended to be held, or
(b) where the procession is intended to be held in more than one police area, to a police station in each area.

(4) If delivered not less than 6 clear days before the date when the procession is intended to be held, the notice may be delivered by post by the recorded delivery service; but section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (under which a document sent by post is deemed to have been served when posted and to have been delivered in the ordinary course of post) does not apply.
(5) If not delivered in accordance with subsection (4), the notice must be delivered by hand not less that 6 clear days before the date when the procession is intended to be held or, if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as delivery is reasonably practicable.'.
Clause 11 as drafted allows advance notice only to be given by hand. I undertook in Committee to bring forward an amendment to provide for advance notice to be given by recorded delivery post. This amendment makes good that commitment. It provides that, where advance notice is given not less than six clear days in advance, delivery may be effected either by hand, or by post by recorded delivery. If an organiser wishes to take advantage of this facility, it is his responsibility that the notice arrives at least six clear days in advance of the procession being held. That is the effect of disapplying section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Where it is not practicable to give six clear days' notice of a procession because it is called at short notice, notice must be delivered by hand. In such cases, it is important that the organisers get together with the police as soon as possible. So we did not think it right to allow service by post except when the notice reaches the police at least six clear days before the procession.

Mr. Kaufman: As the Minister will know, we are not in the least happy about the notice provisions of this Bill. Nevertheless, what the Minister has just moved is the fulfilment of a concession that he made to us in Committee, and we thank him for that.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 7, leave out lines 11 to 15.

No. 26, in page 7, leave out line 22 and insert 'the notice'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 12

IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 7, line 35 leave out 'This section applies'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.

Mr. Shaw: Again these amendments respond to amendments moved in Committee, in particular the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). I agreed to bring forward amendments to provide that, where the chief officer of police gave directions imposing conditions in advance of an assembly, these should be given in writing. Amendment No. 45 makes good that commitment. Amendment No. 34 makes similar provision in respect of processions.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) tabled amendment No. 54, which would have had the effect that directions imposed by the police on an assembly could prescribe the place at which an assembly either might or might not be held. The intention behind the amendment was to ensure that, where an officer imposed conditions as to the place where an assembly might be held, he would not be obliged to specify an alternative site. He could simply say that the assembly could not take place there. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated that we would bring forward an amendment to give effect to this intention, and that is the effect of amendment No. 43.

Mr. Cash: I am advised, by the tone of your voice in calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak very briefly. I hope to do so, as I have indeed done so far in this debate, as hon. Members who have been present throughout will testify.
My concern is with a constituency matter, namely the peace convoy which has been descending on my constituency and its vicinity from time to time. It has also moved from the place where it had settled down, on Cannock Chase, to invade parts of my constituency and to cause a great deal of harassment and concern.
The chief constable of Staffordshire has been extremely helpful in putting together a detailed case to illustrate the way in which the people in my area have been affected. The total cost incurred by the county council ratepayers is as much as £85,000, a considerable amount of money, and this expenditure has been caused by the disruption of the lawful enjoyment of Cannock Chase. These people were leaving Cannock Chase and were going into gardens arid other parts of my constituency, thereby causing a great deal of concern. I hope, therefore, that this provision, in conjunction with clause 5, will do the trick.
We have a serious situation on our hands. The peace convoy is rolling all over the country. It splits up into sections. I hope that the provisions of the clause will go some way towards helping to deal with this matter which is so worrying to my constituents.
That is all that I wish to say. I hope that I have gained your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the brevity of my speech. I beg to ask leave to sit down.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has, in my view, rather spun it out. I trust that he will take warning from the way in which you called him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should he deem it necessary to intervene again.
All that I would like to do is to thank the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking that he gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 8, line 5, leave out '(2) The senior police officer' and insert 'he'.

No. 30, in page 8, line 6, leave out 'any conditions which' and insert 'such conditions as'.

No. 31, in page 8, line 9, leave out 'prescribing' and insert 'as to'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Mr. Lawrence: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) For the avoidance of doubt subsection (2) above shall not apply notwithstanding any conventions or regulation which may otherwise permit such procession to approach the close vicinity of the premises of any foreign mission provided that the senior police officer shall have reason to believe that the procession may lead to a disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity in accordance with Article 22, section 2 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1946).'.
There is a printing error—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I should have pointed out the error to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman is, I am sure, about to point out to the House that in line I the word "not" is a printer's error and should not be included. I apologise to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will proceed with the amendment as corrected.
I am concerned about processions to foreign embassies of the kind that resulted in the tragic death of WPC Fletcher on 17 April—

Mr. Kaufman: It was not a procession; it was an assembly.

Mr. Lawrence: It was an assembly that was the conclusion of a procession of sorts, and it resulted in the tragic death of WPC Fletcher on 17 April 1984. I am concerned that such a tragedy should never be allowed to happen again. It happened because the police authorities, although the Foreign Office was apparently alerted to the likelihood of trouble from the Libyan people's bureau, allowed the movement towards the square—which to some degree was a procession, if not to a complete degree a procession—to take place close to the front of the Libyan people's bureau. Obviously the police authorities considered that either the threat was not serious enough or that the police did not have the power to stop such a procession.
I am delighted and relieved to see that clause 12(1) provides for such a general power to stop or limit

processions, but I am not satisfied that it will be used to stop dangerous processions to embassies. My fear is caused by views expressed when the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs considered the abuse of diplomatic immunities and privileges that arose out of the St. James's square event on 17 April 1984. That Committee reported in December 1984. It was the view of witnesses, some officials and Ministers and also of the Committee, with the exception of myself—my proposal appears in the report and it was negatived—that it was so important that embassies should not be insulated from expressions of public opinion within the receiving state that, provided that work at the embassy could continue normally, there ought to be no restriction upon processions or demonstrations other than those that are already imposed by the existing laws. The tragedy of the existing laws is that they did not prevent the tragedy of WPC Fletcher, although trouble was expected.
If that view, arising from an interpretation of the Vienna convention, or of less official conventions and regulations, were to prevail in future, following the introduction of clause 12 of the Bill a senior police officer might be advised, when a procession approaches an embassy, not to restrict the procession, and it is possible that another police constable will then be shot. At any rate, if it were to happen that processions were to be more freely allowed to approach embassies, considerable danger might still exist in future, as it has existed in the past. It is to remove that potential limitation upon the powers of senior police officers, as set out in clause 12(2), that I move this amendment.
In further support of my proposition, may I add that it was the view of Professor Draper, one of the United Kingdom's leading authorities on international law, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee that a receiving state owes a wider duty to a guest mission than to preserving the Queen's peace. He pointed out that the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 contains no special powers for police commissioners to prevent processions at or near diplomatic premises and that section 3 of the Public Order Act 1934 does not provide sufficient control, although in relation to other processions there is such control. In Professor Draper's view, article 22 of the Vienna convention, which was given the force of law in the United Kingdom by the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, places a greater, not a lesser, duty on the Government to protect embassies. That article imposes an additional obligation, as a special duty, to prevent "impairment of a mission's "dignity." Professor Draper's view to the Select Committee was that:
allowing demonstrators to form up behind barriers placed for the purpose in the immediate frontage of the Libyan mission premises
was such an impairment of dignity and therefore it was incompatible with article 22 of the convention.
Professor Draper's view, which I supported in the Committee, was rejected by the majority of the Committee—I believe with insufficient reason. The view prevailed in the Committee that embassies should not be insulated and that perhaps they should even be encouraged to be subjected to processions and demonstrations so that they could see and understand what feeling there is against the activities of another country in the host country. Therefore, it is sad to relate, WPC Fletcher died. That was not the fault of the British. The murder was by the


Libyans, but the fact remains that it would not have happened if the procession and the demonstration had not been allowed to take place near the mission.
8.15 pm
I have tabled this amendment so that any temptation that there might be by the authorities to say, "Yes, the senior police officer has the power to say that the procession which will lead to a demonstration shall not be allowed to go as close as this, or shall not be allowed to go into St. James's square" shall not be restricted in any way by any argument advanced by any authority that, because it is a diplomatic mission, the caution that he would otherwise impose to restrict a procession shall not apply.
If my hon. Friend the Minister of State will assure me that, as far as the Home Office is concerned, no such advice will be given to a senior police officer that he should, at the margin, allow a procession to take place to an embassy, because it is an embassy, when he would have stopped it if it had been going anywhere else, I shall be satisfied. However, if he is not in a position to give such an assurance, I ask the House to consider the addition of amendment No. 32 in order to make sure that processions that look as though they may be dangerous and that are going in the direction of an embassy shall not be allowed where others would not be allowed, for the very simple reason that the last time that this happened somebody died and this House must make sure that that never happens again to any of our policemen or to any citizen of this country.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In moving his amendment my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) deleted the negative which inadvertently appeared on the marshalled list, and I am grateful to him for doing so. As my hon. and learned Friend said, under article 22(2) of the Vienna convention the United Kingdom is under a duty:
To protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.
I draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to the fact that the United Kingdom is under a duty to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or the impairment of its dignity. Over the years we have more than fully discharged that duty effectively in this capital city. Most of the credit for that, if not all of it, rests with the Metropolitan police, who have the onerous task of providing protection for the embassies in London.
As my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate, the Vienna convention does not ban demonstrations and marches outside embassies. That would be contrary to our traditional freedoms of assembly and demonstration, and would not be acceptable. On occasion—and we can all think of different occasions—it is right that our citizens should be able peacefully to demonstrate their views to the representatives of foreign Governments here. What the Vienna convention does do is to say that we should take all appropriate steps to prevent intrusion or damage or any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. The police, and only the police, have the task of discharging that responsibility and they strive to do so without unduly infringing the right of peaceful protest and freedom of assembly. On occasion, no doubt, some of those in foreign missions would have wished the police to

do more, and on occasions demonstrators and protestors would no doubt have wished them to do less, but in general they seem to have got the balance about right.
During our review of public order law we considered whether any special controls were necessary for demonstrations outside embassies. Paragraph 5.12 of the White Paper which preceded the Bill stated:
The police's existing statutory and common law powers, together with the new controls which are proposed in relation to static demonstrations, should provide the police with all the powers which they need to maintain order outside embassies, and to fulfil their special duty under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964.
The Bill contains provisions which may assist in three particular respects to ensure that our obligations under the Vienna convention can be carried out. First, the police will be able to impose conditions on static demonstrations as well as on processions. Secondly, the ability of the police to impose conditions will be extended from the present sole test of serious public disorder to cover demonstrations which threaten serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community or the intimidation of individuals. Thirdly, the offence of disorderly conduct in clause 5 can be deployed where the offending conduct is likely to harass, alarm or distress the people going to and from or working inside an embassy as well as any other person. My hon. and learned Friend will recognise that these are the conditions which are available in the Bill, which covers all citizens for all events of this character. Subject to the House passing the legislation, there is no change in the rules or conditions which will be imposed on citizens or any person.
There is no special arrangement in the conditions which apply to embassies. On the contrary, the conditions will be identical. Those imposed on demonstrations outside embassies will be the same as elsewhere. The use of the powers will depend on the circumstances. I certainly do not claim that they are likely to lead to a fundamental change in the policing of demonstrations outside embassies. In our view that would neither be right nor necessary to comply with the Vienna convention.
The theme of the Bill is that we should bring the law relating to public order up to date and ensure that the police have the power to prevent and deal with disorder without infringing the right of peaceful protest. Even without our international obligations, it is right that those working in embassies should have the same protection as our own citizens. We continue to take the view, as we did in the White Paper, that additional specific controls are not required and that, with the existing law, the current Bill will confirm that the police have the powers that they need to ensure that our obligations under the Vienna convention are discharged.
The same criteria on public order will apply. The House will take note of the tragedy which occurred as a result of the assembly outside the Libyan people's bureau. I am convinced that the police, who have the right to impose conditions, will take note of that in ensuring that citizens of whatever country, at whatever place—certainly not just our own citizens—are not put at risk by any misapplication of the conditions pertaining to public order.
I trust that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that, in setting out the conditions in this way, the provisions for dealing with the matters which he rightly raised are adequately contained in the Bill. The powers that the police will have will ensure that the conditions are applied outside embassies as they are applied anywhere else.

Mr. Lawrence: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and that no instructions will be given by the Home Office or anybody else. In the case of a procession to an embassy, any doubts concerning the dangers of the procession will be suspended because of the supreme importance of a demonstration appearing in front of an embassy. That being so, I am satisfied, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 8, line 11, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.

No. 34, in page 8, line 18, at end insert—
'(3A) A direction given by a chief police officer by virtue of subsection (3)(b) shall be given in writing.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 8, line 29, after 'constable', insert 'in uniform'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 39 and 46.

Mr. Shaw: In Committee I undertook to bring forward amendments to provide that the power of arrest in clauses 12 and 14 would be exercised only by a constable in uniform. That is the effect of these amendments.

Mr. Kaufman: I thank the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking that he gave in Committee. I am especially pleased that the Government are making this point in statute, in the light of the disquieting reports that come to us from Wapping.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 9, line 1, leave out subsection (11).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 51, in clause 16, in page 11, line 35, leave out from 'highway' to 'and' in line 36.

No. 54, in clause 17, in page 12, line 5, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'England and Wales'.

No. 58, in clause 18, in page 12, line 27, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'England and Wales'.

No. 62, in clause 19, in page 13, line 11, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'England and Wales'.

No. 70, in clause 22, in page 13, line 40, leave out subsection (1).

No. 71, in page 14, line 7, leave out 'a sheriff or'.

No. 72, in page 14, line 10, leave out 'sheriff or'.

No. 73, in clause 23, in page 14, line 35, leave out subsection (3).

No. 78, in clause 24, in page 15, line 11, leave out from 'highway' to 'and' in line 12.

No. 83, in clause 33, in page 19, line 22, leave out from '1985' to 'shall' in line 23.

No. 84, in clause 35, in page 20, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1)This Act shall extend to England and Wales only.'

No. 85, in page 20, line 7, leave out '12, 14' and insert '17'.

No. 86, in page 20, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 89, in schedule 1, in page 24, line 11, leave out Part II.

Mr. Ewing: Amendment No. 36 and the large group of associated amendments are not as forbidding as they might appear. The only purpose of these amendments is to remove Scotland from the terms of the Bill.
I am sure the Solicitor-General has heard the arguments before. The Solicitor-General has failed to convince public opinion and the local authorities of Scotland—I am not sure whether he has convinced the police authorities—that there is a need for Scotland to be included in the Bill. There are two good reasons for that submission.
First, the Solicitor-General will be aware that we have sufficient powers under common law in Scotland. The Scottish position is radically different from the position in England and Wales. The Scottish common law covers any situation which may arise in England and Wales and which will be subsequently covered by legislation contained in the Bill. If the Solicitor-General is not convinced of that argument, he need look no further back than three weeks ago. In central Scotland there was a demonstration which had been properly organised and properly authorised. It certainly did not appear to have the portent of trouble. However, under Scottish common law, those organising the demonstration were persuaded not to go ahead with the demonstration in the interests of the community in which the demonstration was to be held.
That is a recent example of a demonstration being cancelled at the last minute without the existence of this proposed legislation. All those concerned were aware that there were sufficient powers in Scottish common law to deal with that situation.
The second good reason for excluding Scotland from the Bill is the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. That Act gave responsibility to regional councils and all-purpose island authorities to authorise any public assembly, a march or merely static demonstration. So great is that responsibility and so great is their authority that the regions and all-purpose island authorities can decide the route, the number of people who may attend and the duration of the demonstration. I should stress that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 was put through largely with the agreement of my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. I would not want anybody to think that it was a party political Act. What makes the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill so surprising and unnecessary is the fact that we spent so much time in 1981–82 getting that Act right so that it would cover assemblies such as are addressed by the Bill.
We believe that people have a right to demonstrate within the law. Nobody is trying to justify unlawful assemblies. Our argument is that an organisation could have made all of the necessary arrangements with the regional council or island authority, only to turn up on the day to be confronted by the most senior police officer present and be told that it cannot go ahead.
8.30 pm
All of the briefing notes and other literature that has been provided refers to a sergeant being the most senior officer present, but I am sure that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will concede that there are remote areas of Scotland where the only police officer present could well be a constable. A constable, albeit in uniform, might cancel all of the arrangements that have been authorised by the regional council or island authority. The police officer might be acting with the best possible intentions. I am not criticising the police—I am criticising the Solicitor-General and his Scottish Office colleagues for putting Scottish police forces in a difficult, if not impossible, position.
The regional councils and island authorities are responsible for administering the 1982 Act and are the police authorities. Central regional council could authorise a demonstration which was cancelled by one of its employees at the last minute. That is ludicrous, but police officers are ultimately employees of the regional police authorities. By including Scotland in the Bill, the Government are putting Scottish police forces in an impossible position. I have yet to hear any justification for including Scotland.
I do not see the need for a review of the legislation, but that does not mean that no need exists. If it is necessary to consider the 1982 Act and common law on demonstrations, however, this is not the way in which to go about it. We should be much more thorough than include a small section—with major implications—on Scotland in a United Kingdom Bill. I must plead with the Solicitor-General to exclude Scotland. If a review is needed, we should have properly thought-out and structured legislation which meets our needs. I am sure that the House agrees with that proposition, bearing in mind the differences between English and Scottish law. Our needs and circumstances are often different. I hope that the Solicitor-General will respond positively.

Mr. James Wallace: I must endorse much of what the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) said. Those of us who represent Scottish constituencies are generally anxious about how Scottish reforms are dealt with. Many of us would prefer that these debates took place in a devolved Scottish parliament.
This is another example of Scots legislation being tacked on to a substantially English Bill. Much the same happened in 1982, when there was an English Criminal Justice Bill with one or two Scottish speckles. Lord McCluskey described it as somewhat akin to a Yorkshire pudding with porridge oats in it. The Bill does not have regard to the long and separate traditions of the Scottish common law.
Scotland also has very different statutory provisions, especially as regards the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. That Act puts emphasis on the regional council or island authority to determine whether processions should take place. It empowers them to specify the date and time of a procession, its route, the number of people who can take part, arrangements for its control and to impose certain conditions on it. An applicant for a procession who believes that the council has not fulfilled its statutory duties can appeal to the sheriff. The Bill, however, gives power to a police officer to stop a procession. It is unlikely but, as has been said, that police officer could be a constable. He might overturn provisions that have been considered by a local authority and been subject to considerable debate.
There is one matter on which I take small issue with the hon. Member for Falkirk, East. He referred to processions and assemblies. It is my understanding that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 does not cover assemblies. In fact, what we have is a totally new provision in relation to assemblies. Therefore, we shall have an entirely separate means of controlling and dealing with assemblies compared with processions. That is illustrative of the anomalous position one can get into by such piecemeal legislation.
Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, it is my understanding that on at least one

occasion hon. Members suggested a Scottish-type solution for some of the English problems. They were told that that was not appropriate because conditions, circumstances and the tradition of law are different in Scotland. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Because this legislation is thought appropriate for England, it does not follow that it is appropriate for Scotland.
Reference was made to the fact that the Bill brings the police into circumstances where they might not wish to become too deeply involved. If the Government are to make a case for this legislation applying to Scotland they should show that there are circumstances in Scotland which are crying out for this type of reform. They should show that there are circumstances in which there is an absence of the law as it stands in England.
I am advised from a reasonably reliable authority that on one day in December of last year there were a series of incidents in Glasgow. One of them involved the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who had gone to Glasgow to address a rally. On the same day there was a protest march against strip searching in Armagh gaol. There was a counter-march by Ulster loyalists, who sought to intercept those who were protesting against strip searches. That protest was taking place in the City halls. The Loyalists were milling around George square in Glasgow. Those who know the geography of Glasgow will know that Buchanan street underground station is not far away and the National Front was holding a rally there. The Strathclyde community relations council held a multiracial festival in the City chambers and the Scottish Asian advisory committee was involved in another demonstration nearby. That demonstration was held at short notice and the committee was given permission to waive the necessary 24 hours notice. The National Front attempted to disrupt that demonstration.
I am told by someone who observed all of that that the police handled it brilliantly and that they coped particularly well. That is because they had to use the common law tools available to them. They had to show their policing skills and they did so. The amount of trouble involved was minimal. I fear that if the police have the powers that will be available under this Bill it would not encourage the best policing. There would, perhaps, be an early resort to using the powers and that would lead to lax policing and could cause trouble where, at the moment, more sensitive policing has managed to avoid it.
I do not think that there have been incidents in Scotland which would have given rise to these powers being given to officers of as low a rank as constable. For those reasons I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to consider whether Scotland needs the legislation. It will not put a hole through the Government's legislative programme or substantially diminish the effect of the Bill if, even at this late stage, he was to reconsider the position and take out the provisions relating to Scotland. If he feels that there is a need for a broad overhaul and review of the law in Scotland relating to public order and mobbing and rioting that could take place, we would be prepared to consider that if it was brought forward in a specifically Scottish Bill. Once again, law reform for Scotland in this halfhearted, piecemeal and tacked-on fashion is not in the best interest of Scottish law or the Scottish people.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I support this series of amendments. I am sorry that I was not able to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). I had understood that the debate would take place later. Nevertheless, without having heard the hon. Gentleman, my views on this matter are fairly clear.
I am against Scotland being included in the Bill—for two reasons. The first is that to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has already referred. We are dealing with Scottish provisions tacked on to an English measure. I am told that Scotland is included because the Bill was produced in panic by the Government and the police in England because during the miners' strike and on other occasions they found that the English legal system was not capable, in their view, of dealing with some of the difficulties which ensued. Even if there were a case for action in relation to Scotland, it is wholly wrong that the Government should have produced this Bill with Scottish provisions tacked on.
I believe that the Committee had only one or two Scottish members—I do not know the exact composition—and I would not be pleased to have legislation changing Scottish law in a major way in relation to demonstrations and assemblies from a Committee largely composed of members representing constituencies in England and Wales. There is no way in which Scottish Members could hope to give any input from our Scottish experience in that context. Therefore, I reiterate the case which has been made within Scotland on many occasions by the Law Society and many others, that where a substantial change in Scottish law is called for, it should be done by separate legislation. I cannot see any reason why there should not have been a separate Bill for Scotland if it is argued that the changes are justifiable.
I now move from my first objection, which is one of principle, to my second objection. I am not convinced that any real change is required in the arrangements for dealing with public assembly, demonstrations and processions in Scotland. Despite all the difficult factors which can arise—the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to an intelligent system operating in Glasgow—we have not had many inflammable situations which have not been dealt with by the police using common sense, and the laws as they already exist in Scotland.
It is for the Government to persuade the House that Scotland should be included in the Bill. I await the arguments, but I think that the Solicitor-General for Scotland may be hard pressed to produce arguments which will be acceptable to me. I agree with many of the arguments adopted by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and I do not intend to go over the same ground again. However, as a matter of general principle it should be for the local authority—the democratically elected body—to have a say in these matters as we have now.
It seems strange that, only a few years after the Government produced the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, we have to have such a major reshaping of the arrangements for dealing with processions and assemblies. I do not know what has conditioned the Government to do it, but it seems that they have joined the stampede in favour of a change in the law, without having done their homework. A major change of this kind, which takes

responsibility from a democratically elected authority and gives it to the police, should not be done within a time span of two or three years.
An element of civil liberty is involved. It is always easier to erode civil liberties than to establish them. By taking responsibility from the elected authorities and giving it to the police, the Government are not helping either civil liberties in Scotland or, I suspect, the police themselves. The police will look askance at the powers that they have been given. When they take decisions on their own authority, they will become involved in political activity, which is wrong. The police should be shielded from that wherever possible, in the interests not just of the citizens but of the police themselves.
Respect for the police comes from the way in which they enforce the law, but that is not so if people suspect that politcal bias might creep in. I am not saying that the police would adopt a politically biased attitude, but if a demonstration or assembly is stopped or interfered with under the Act, the blame will be placed on the police, when they may not be guilty of anything. It is much better that the responsibility for such decisions is taken by elected politicians who have, in turn, to answer to their electorate for the way in which the powers of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act are enforced.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): This debate is about the disapplication of the Bill to Scotland. The objective of the official Opposition is to disapply all the provisions of the Bill. I am a little surprised that there is not an amendment on the Scottish provisions in schedule 2, which amends the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. I think that the basic intention of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) is that it is wrong to legislate for Scotland in what he sees as an English and Welsh Bill.
While I understand that argument—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am making a cheap political point—I am to some extent surprised that it was only in Committee that, for the first time, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) advanced the argument. No Scottish Labour Member spoke on Second Reading. While the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke, I understand that he did so in his capacity as law and order spokesman for the alliance, and he made no specific reference to the disapplication to Scotland.
This matter was not suddenly sprung on Scottish Members of Parliament. As hon. Members who are interested in these areas of the law will appreciate, in the White Paper of May 1985, we set out in a paragraph that related solely to Scotland exactly what is now included in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East wishes to disapply the whole Bill. As I understand it, the objective of the amendment tabled by the alliance is more limited. It is to disapply only clauses 12 and 14. It is identical to the amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland in Committee.
It might be useful if I looked at the effect of the group of amendments tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I am concerned that, although the broad point of opposition has been stated, some of the consequences of what is proposed might not be appreciated. Most particularly, although the hon. Member for Falkirk, East did not include this in his


remarks, what concerns me is that part III of the Bill would be disapplied to Scotland. The measures in that part of the Bill are essentially a modernisation of the present law on racial hatred, now contained in section 5A of the Public Order Act 1936, which was inserted by section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976, at a time when the hon. Member for Falkirk, East was a member of the Government.
Section 5A of the 1936 Act applies both north and south of the border. I see no reason why this attempt to update and extend the statutory protection offered by the new measures should not do so. Indeed, if the measures did not apply in Scotland, following the repeal of section 5A we would be left without statutory powers in that area, where we cannot confidently rely on the adequacy of Scots common law to come to our aid in every instance involving incitement to racial hatred.

Mr. Ewing: The Solicitor-General is making a valid point, which I accept. In the spirit of negotiation and good will that we are now enjoying, I am prepared to drop the amendments in exchange for the hon. and learned Gentleman accepting the rest of my amendments.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. I appreciate that he sees the importance of having the provisions in Scotland. However, the interesting thing about the argument is that his Government, when he was a member of it, saw that some parts of public order should be legislated for on a United Kingdom basis. After the Race Relations Act 1976, the process of legislation was to bring that into the Public Order Act 1936, which applied on a Great Britain basis. Therefore, the idea that for the first time we are legislating on public order on a Great Britain basis, when previously we had done it separately for England and Wales and Scotland, is not true.
I do not need to labour that point. I am relieved, as I am sure every other hon. Member is, that in Scotland we have had fewer racial hatred problems than elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman seems to appreciate that it would be wrong to give a signal to any racial minority, wherever it was in Great Britain, that it is not to enjoy the statutory protection of the law.

Mr. Soley: It would be a little disingenuous to imply that that was the main problem. The Solicitor-General will remember that more than once in Committee I raised the fact that the system in Scotland, leaving aside the racial hatred part of the Bill, was working very well. Time and again, I challenged the Government to say why they felt it necessary to impose on Scotland something which we felt in England and Wales was not necessary. The Solicitor-General never answered that point in Committee, and he is not answering Scottish Members tonight.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am still dealing with part III and racial hatred. I understood that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East recognised what I was trying to say.
The substance of both sets of amendments concerns processions, covered in part II of the Bill. Both the official Opposition and the alliance seek to remove clause 12(11) from the Bill. I remind hon. Members of the purpose of the clause. It is to give the police at the scene the power to impose conditions on a procession—provided the statutory criteria are met—when the procession is in progress or when the marchers are assembling. It is essentially an on-the-spot power for the police.
This point was picked up by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The hon. Member for Falkirk, East referred to the powers under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act. However, the difference is this. We have to deal with circumstances that may emerge after the local authority, given the regulatory power that it has under the 1982 Act, has taken its decision. The 1982 Act establishes that regulatory framework, allowing for the imposition of conditions in advance of the march taking place.
Having introduced the measure with the agreement of all parties in Scotland, I would be the first to recognise that it has worked well. Apart from the minor changes in schedule 2, I have no desire to change it. As the hon. Member for Falkirk, East will appreciate, when we introduced the 1982 Act, the powers at present contained in section 3 of the 1936 Act and which continue to give the police power on the spot in relation to processions in Scotland were still in being. They apply with equal force north and south of the border.
9 pm
During the debate on the Queen's Speech last year, the hon. Member for Garscadden argued for the need to withdraw section 3 of the 1936 Act from Scotland, on the basis that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 was sufficient to deal with all the problems that might arise. I am surprised at that stance and at the line that is being followed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East. Hon. Members will recollect that two years ago I was regularly questioned about the way in which the police were exercising their common law powers in relation to the unhappy circumstances of the miners' dispute. At that time, the hon. Member for Garscadden expressed his concern about what he called the extraordinary wide use of powers under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, and asked of me:
Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not worried … that … the police will be able to ban any rally, demonstration or meeting without recourse to public order legislation? Is that now wrong?"—[Official Report, 16 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 360.]
It is precisely because we think that it is important for police powers in relation to processions to be expressly defined that clause 12(11) has been inserted in the Bill. Its removal would give rise to the very fears that the hon. Gentleman expressed then.
I find it curious that in Strathclyde, which includes more than half the population of Scotland, the regional authority imposed conditions on allowing exemption from the notification requirements under section 62 of the 1982 Act. One of its standard conditions is that police instructions shall be obeyed. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East would have thought that that power was not clearly defined. If, for example, that were to be the Bill's provision for the way in which those participating in a procession should act, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and others would undoubtedly say that it wholly lacked any specification.
I am puzzled why the hon. Member for Falkirk, East takes such exception to setting out clearly in Scotland, subject to the stern criteria of serious public disorder, serious damage to property or intimidation, the powers of the police on the spot to regulate the circumstances. He made some play of the fact that the police have common law powers in Scotland, and I do not dissent from that observation. However, I remember equally well that


during the miners' dispute he and some of his colleagues went to see the Secretary of State, and openly and clearly expressed their anxiety that the police were resorting to common law powers in those difficult and delicate circumstances. What is wrong with taking the opportunity to set out clearly, subject to those stern criteria, how the police should be able to impose their conditions on a procession or assembly, instead of leaving it to the less clearly defined powers of common law which the police have?
The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that it is undesirable for the police to be intimately involved when members of the public are exercising their democratic right either to assemble or to engage in a procession. I hope that the circumstances of such assemblies or processions are such that the powers under clauses 12 to 14 would rarely be used. Indeed, I would consider the management of our affairs in Scotland a success, if the powers were never relied on. Essentially, these powers are to be held in reserve.
The hon. Gentleman said that the regional authority in Scotland was the police authority. He made the fair point that it might seem slightly odd that if that authority gave a group of people permission to process, it might find that a police officer wanted to impose conditions on the exercise of that right. I recognise that possible difficulty, but the criteria are stern. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's Labour colleagues on Central region would be somewhat alarmed if police officers employed by them, under the direction of the chief constable, would not take the necessary action if there was serious public disorder, intimidation or serious damage to property.
I hope that we will not have another miners' strike in Scotland. But the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will certainly remember that at the time of the strike, several people came up from south of the border to express their views about the dispute. There is a good argument for saying that the powers that the police can take to themselves in such circumstances are widely known and that if they are widely known on a Great Britain basis that is all the more to the good.
My final point may prove unnecessary. The amendment to disapply would also disapply several changes made in the Bill in relation to alcohol at sporting events, as contained in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. The hon. Member for Falkirk, East seemed to address his remarks primarily to part II and not to any changes that might be included in relation to alcohol at football grounds. But, as he knows, those measures have operated successfully in Scotland for more than five years. I hope that he will accept that the law could be updated and improved, just as it will be elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Although the argument for disapplying has been put, the Government believe that we are talking about desirable reserve powers that fall into the pattern that has existed successully in Scotland for some time. Although anxieties have been expressed, those powers are not in any way at variance with what is contained in the civic government code. They merely provide useful complementary provisions where on-the-spot difficulties might arise.

Mr. Ewing: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I accept what the Solicitor-General says about the safety of sports grounds and the provision of alcohol there.
But on the whole the Solicitor-General's argument is based on the fact that the amendment will somehow damage the Bill. He has singularly failed to convince me and my right hon. and hon. Friends of that. The Government will have an opportunity in the other place to reinsert anything taken out of the Bill, and so I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment so that the Bill is disapplied in the case of Scotland.

Mr. Maclennan: One thing missing from the Solicitor-General's speech on the proposed disapplication of the public order provisions was any justification, based on evidence, that the law in Scotland does not work. When we debated the subject in Committee, he relied on arguments of tidiness and on ex hypothesi arguments that carried no weight with the Committee. He dismissed the views of the Law Society of Scotland, which complained that the Scottish Office had dreamt up this matter, hanging on to the coat tails of the Home Office.
The arguments have been well made about the procedural objections to reforming the law of Scotland via a side wind. I realise that some hon. Members from Labour constituencies in England are not concerned about this measure. Fortunately, they do not represent the views of the majority of the Opposition. [Interruption.] Hon. Members would be wise not to provoke me. If they do, I cannot guarantee that this important matter will be dealt with expeditiously.
The arguments which the Solicitor-General deployed were the best that could be made. He made the typically persuasive speech of an advocate. The fact remains that there is no mischief to be remedied. The law in Scotland is working well. We are being dragged along for reasons of tidiness alone. I regret that the Solicitor-General has seen fit to kowtow to the Home Office. He would be better advised in future to make major changes in Scots law by means of a Scottish Bill. The participation of Scottish Members would therefore be greater at all stages than it has been during this legislation. It is highly unsatisfactory that it is possible only at the concluding stages of the Bill for Labour Members to define their arguments. They are, for understandable reasons, terribly anxious to do so. We cannot proceed in that way.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 229.

Division No. 164]
[9.13 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Alton, David
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Caborn, Richard


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Campbell, Ian


Barnett, Guy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barron, Kevin
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Beith, A. J.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bell, Stuart
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clay, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Clelland, David Gordon


Bidwell, Sydney
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Boyes, Roland
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Coleman, Donald






Conlan, Bernard
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Martin, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maxton, John


Craigen, J. M.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crowther, Stan
Meacher, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mikardo, Ian


Dixon, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Douglas, Dick
Moore, Rt Hon John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Nellist, David


Eadie, Alex
O'Brien, William


Eastham, Ken
O'Neill, Martin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Park, George


Ewing, Harry
Parry, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Pavitt, Laurie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pendry, Tom


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Penhaligon, David


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Forrester, John
Prescott, John


Foster, Derek
Randall, Stuart


Foulkes, George
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Garrett, W. E.
Robertson, George


George, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman
Rooker, J. W.


Golding, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Gould, Bryan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Gourlay, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Sheerman, Barry


Hancock, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Haynes, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Home Robertson, John
Snape, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Stott, Roger


Janner, Hon Greville
Straw, Jack


John, Brynmor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Kennedy, Charles
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kirkwood, Archy
Tinn, James


Lambie, David
Torney, Tom


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leighton, Ronald
Wareing, Robert


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Weetch, Ken


Litherland, Robert
White, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McCartney, Hugh
Wilson, Gordon


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Woodall, Alec


McKelvey, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor



Maclennan, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


McTaggart, Robert
Mr. John McWilliam and


Madden, Max
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Best, Keith


Amess, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brinton, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)





Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Buck, Sir Antony
Key, Robert


Budgen, Nick
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Burt, Alistair
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Butterfill, John
Knowles, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knox, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lang, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Latham, Michael


Cash, William
Lawler, Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Coombs, Simon
Lightbown, David


Cope, John
Lilley, Peter


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Critchley, Julian
Lord, Michael


Crouch, David
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dicks, Terry
Lyell, Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Macfarlane, Neil


Durant, Tony
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Evennett, David
Maclean, David John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Forman, Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Madel, David


Forth, Eric
Major, John


Fox, Marcus
Malins, Humfrey


Franks, Cecil
Malone, Gerald


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Maples, John


Fry, Peter
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marlow, Antony


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mather, Carol


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gow, Ian
Mellor, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Ground, Patrick
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hannam, John
Mudd, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Neale, Gerrard


Harris, David
Needham, Richard


Harvey, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, J.
Onslow, Cranley


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Heddle, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Henderson, Barry
Pawsey, James


Hickmet, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, Barry


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)


Hirst, Michael
Powley, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Price, Sir David


Holt, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howard, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rost, Peter


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Ryder, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sackville, Hon Thomas






Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, David


Silvester, Fred
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Speed, Keith
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spencer, Derek
Watson, John


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Squire, Robin
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Raymond


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Terlezki, Stefan
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that tonight there has been a riot at Northeye prison near Bexhill, that the prison is on fire, that a number of prisoners have escaped and that what has happened may well have been partly caused by the problems arising from the prison officers' dispute. I ask that the Home Secretary or a relevant Home Office Minister should come to the House tonight to make a statement on what has happened at Northeye prison, which appears to be extremely serious and ought to be dealt with urgently.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Subject to the proceedings and courtesies of the House, I understand that my right hon. Friend intends to make a statement at 10 o'clock.

Clause 13

PROHIBITING PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 9, line 5, after 'police', insert 'reasonably'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 38.

Mr. Shaw: In Committee I undertook to look at aspects of the judicial review procedure—namely, the insertion of "reasonably" in two places in clause 13 which reflects the power to ban. I did so in response to amendments moved by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). These amendments give effect to that undertaking and add a requirement of reasonableness to the chief officer's belief, for the purposes of clause 13, and therefore bring the clause into line with clauses 12(1) and 14(1).

Mr. Kaufman: If it were not so pleasant, it would become monotonous, but I thank the Minister for fulfilling his undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 9, line 22, after 'Metropolis', insert 'reasonably'.

No. 39, in page 9, line 42, after 'constable', insert 'in uniform'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 14

IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES

Mr. David Clelland: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 10, line 13, leave out clause 14.
We now come to what is probably the most contentious clause in the Bill, in so far as it proposes the introduction of restrictions on traditional liberties and freedoms. Our intention is to oppose the inclusion of clause 14, and to this end we have tabled the amendment.
This part of the Bill threatens to introduce the criminal law into picketing, and in so doing it presents the distinct possibility—indeed, probability—that that other forms of assembly will also fall foul of its provisions. The fact that the Bill defines an assembly as being constituted by as few as three people reveals the extent to which the Government have been taken over by their more extreme element, and how much of an influence it has within the Conservative party. It also says much about the Government's policies and proposals as they affect other sections of our society.
I do not have the experience to recall the progress of other Bills, but the number of amendments that the Government have had to accept as a result of the force of argument from the Labour party reveals a carelessness in drafting that must be horrifying to all thinking people who live in the realisation of the power that the Government wield and the extent to which that power can affect their everyday lives and freedoms.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) attempted to persuade the Government that to define a group of only three persons as an assembly, which could thereby make them liable to be in conflict with the criminal law, was an act of the utmost folly that threatened to be a more serious erosion of traditional liberties. Thankfully, the Minister, who evidently does not share the extremist views of some of his colleagues, accepted the strength of the arguments of my hon. Friends and agreed to an increase in the number to 10. That was an improvement on the proposal in the Bill, but it was still short of our perception of what was reasonable if such a provision had to be included at all. I am pleased to learn that the Government, having thought more seriously about the matter, may now be disposed to accept the amendment tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends proposing that if the clause is to be included in the Bill the number constituting an assembly for the purposes of the Act should be increased to 20.
9.30 pm
Notwithstanding this and other amendments tabled by the Government following arguments advanced in Committee by Opposition Members, it remains our contention that clause 14 constitutes a major change in the right of ordinary citizens to demonstrate their discontent.
Much has been said about the rights of individuals, as though there was some doubt whether the Labour party believes that the rights of individuals deserve protection. It appears that some Conservative Members are under the impression that if an individual seeks support from a number of his fellow citizens—only two originally, but now 19—to protect or advance these rights, he ceases to


be an individual and becomes a mob, and as such his rights become less important than they were when he was an individual. What nonsense that is. That defies the traditions and principles of democracy.
On Monday I visited a voluntary group in my constituency called the Riverside Child Health Project. This project brings together mostly young mothers and one-parent families to discuss health and other problems which they have to face—problems of which my constituency has more than its fair share.
In discussions with one young mother, who was extremely concerned about the implications of the Government's proposals for the social services system, I was asked what can these young mothers do but demonstrate to illustrate their opposition? What struck me as significant and cruel is that this week, while the Government continue to progress their proposals for further eroding the standard of living of that young woman and her family, we will have to listen to the Government putting up arguments as to why her one direct avenue of protest should be restricted. Conservative Members may say that that will not happen and that it is not the purpose of the Bill to do that. How do they know that that will not happen? There is nothing in the Bill which says that it cannot happen, although there is plenty that says it can.
The clause reveals that it can happen, and the police will make it happen. A policeman must decide whether an assembly can be effective or not by imposing the conditions laid down in the Bill as to time, place, numbers and so on. In some cases a single police officer must believe that an assembly will result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community. He must decide whether the purpose of the persons organising the assembly is to intimidate others with a view to compelling them not to do something they have a right to do or to do something they must not do. There is too much scope for interpretation within the clause.
What is
serious disruption to the life of the community
which a policeman must decide in advance may occur? As the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) said in Committee:
what may be serious disruption to my tranquil village of Wendons Ambo will not have the same effect on a street in Islington?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee, G, 13 March 1986; c. 744.]
What is intimidation? As we saw in the case of Thomas v. The National Union of Mineworkers, at least one judge, Mr. Justice Scott, believes that simply standing glowering can be highly intimidating.
The clause does not say that the participants in the assembly must cause disruption in order to trigger this legislation. Therefore, the opponents of an entirely peaceful demonstration could, by threatening disruption, without necessarily having the intention to do so, cause a demonstration to be moved on by the police and even broken up. We can all think of organisations or individuals who would take great delight in such activity.
Some Conservative Members may still insist that that will not happen, but there is another law which says that if it can happen, it will happen. Even the most ardent supporters of the Bill cannot deny that under these proposals it is possible for a demonstration to be inhibited for reasons entirely within the personal prejudices of an individual police officer.
I am not suggesting that police officers will deliberately set out to act in such a way, but the fact that it is in their power to do so is as worrying to many of them as it is to anyone else. Senior police officers have said that the police should not be thrust into the arena of political decision making. Indeed, the Home Secretary said as much. Under the Bill and this clause they will be, or at best, they may be, thrust into that arena. Because so much will depend upon the judgment and discretion of the police, even when demonstrators act reasonably and genuinely fear the consequences set out in the Bill, they will always have the suspicion that the police are biased against them and that they are making decisions of a political nature. That will cause a further deterioration in relations between the police and the public, and that is why some senior police officers are worried and do not want to be put in that position.
The clause is designed to be restrictive. Therefore, in carrying out the law, as it is their duty to do, police officers will be viewed as acting in a restrictive manner. They will be seen to be against the demonstrators and so, by implication, for the subject of the demonstration. That is why it was argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the Bill should contain some positive measures to balance the negative elements; that the Bill should recognise the rights of individuals to the right to protest and demonstrate, rather than deal entirely with restrictions on such activities.
The Minister has agreed, again after strong argument by Opposition Members, to issue a circular to the police reminding them of the right of people to assemble and demonstrate peacefully, but a golden opportunity has been missed to win back the confidence of the vast majority of people who will be directly affected by the legislation—the opportunity to give something rather than once again be taking more away.
It is perhaps a measure of the distaste which the Government have for those traditional rights that, while they are willing to issue a circular, they could not bring themselves to incorporate in legislation the right to protest. In Committee the Home Secretary said:
We have no desire to heap powers on the police for some political purpose. The sole test should be the better protection of the public.
I certainly agree with that, but the public whom I represent want protection against burglars, muggers, rapists and vandals. Not one constituent has asked me for protection against a May day rally or students' rag week parade.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who had the greatest possible success with his amendments in Committee, which is no doubt why he is proposing this amendment. But should not the public who wish to go to work at least have protection from those who mob around the gates in that the police can ask them to stand back? All right, they may demonstrate, but the man who does not wish to be stopped, even by menaces, should be able to walk through to work. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that in the case of Mr. Justice Scott, to which he referred, some 50 people sought, by much more than glowering, to try to intimidate people from exercising their lawful rights?

Mr. Clelland: The hon. and learned Gentleman ignores the fact that the police already have considerable powers to make way for people going to work, as was done


during the miners' strike. This is an additional power which is designed to restrict not only that activity but some other peaceful activities, as I have described. I am sure that we shall see examples of that as time goes on. This further restriction is an infringement of individual liberties and that is why we shall oppose the clause.
What are we to read into the Home Secretary's words? They reveal to me that the right hon. Gentleman identifies three groups of people—the police, the public and the demonstrators. The job of the police, as he sees it, is to protect the public against the demonstrators. This was confirmed, to my mind at least, when he went on to say:
I think that we all agree that a balance must be struck between the rights of those who organise and attend assemblies and the rights of other people who are going about their lawful occasions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 March 1986; c. 729–30.]
I could not help noticing that the word "lawful" is used of one group but not of the other. It may be a bit Freudian of me, but the right hon. Gentleman's words reveal to me a bias, perhaps subconscious, against those who wish to demonstrate. I must not, however, be too disparaging. The decision to issue the circular is welcome and will, no doubt, have an influence over the practical operation of the proposals, if enacted.
In the Government's whole approach to this matter, we perceive a desire to curtail the freedom of groups and individuals to protest and to dissent. While the amendments which have been accepted have gone some way towards tempering the original proposals, the clause remains too restrictive, potentially too damaging to police-public relations, and too intolerant of traditional rights and liberties. It is good news for Rupert Murdoch, but it threatens to weaken even further the position of those who find themselves in conflict with the rich and powerful.
We spent about 80 hours in Committee on this Bill. When we spend that much time discussing how we may correct the social conditions which have led to so much crime and unrest in our country over the past seven years, that will be when the House really begins to tackle the problem of public order.

Mr. Hind: If this clause is removed from the Bill, we may as well not have a Public Order Bill at all. Nobody who realises the problems of public order today and who is responsible for organising demonstrations will doubt that this Bill will affect in any way the control and administration of demonstrations and processions that are properly organised and responsibly carried out. Those organisers have nothing to fear. What this clause strikes at is the problem outside the print works in Warrington and Wapping, outside Orgreave coke works, outside Nottingham pits. Those are the problems that the public look to us to solve, and this is one of the ways in which we do it.
If we vote against this clause, we fail in our duty to the public—and they are not expecting us to do that tonight. I ask that the amendment be rejected.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Clause 14 demonstrates not only the Government's failure to understand what is required in the situations with which they are attempting to deal but, far more fundamental and disturbing, the Government's continued failure to recognise their international obligations as regards the right of peaceful assembly.
This is a failure not only of the present Government but of successive Governments over many years. It is my view, a view that I urge the House to take, that it is wrong to enact a further series of prohibitions dealing with assemblies without at the same time attempting at long last to enact some positive legislation which gives and defines the right to protest and of peaceful assembly. We tend to assume that, in common with some other countries, we have a right to make peaceful protest, and to assemble to make that protest, but, of course, that is not the case. As Lord Hewart said in the case of Duncan v. Jones:
English law does not recognise any special right of public meeting for political or other purposes. The right of assembly … is nothing more than a view taken by the court of the individual liberty of the subject".
This Government, like all Governments since Lord Hewart spoke those words many years ago, should have brought into domestic law the obligations to which we as a nation have assented in more than one international agreement.
9.45 pm
Pursuant to article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, we as a nation have agreed that
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others",
subject to restrictions which, in my view, do not go as far as those in the present clause 14. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that
The Right of Peaceful Assembly shall be recognised.
It is worth bearing in mind, too, the first amendment of the United States constitution which provides that
Congress shall make no law … prohibiting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.
The word "right" is repeated again and again in those international declarations. It must be within a framework that includes a clear statement of what our rights are that prohibitions such as those that are contained in clause 14 should be enacted, and then only if they are absolutely necessary.

Mr. Cash: There seems to be something slightly wrong with the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. All right hon. and hon. Members would subscribe to the idea of peaceful assembly, but clause 14 deals with a completely different situation where a senior police officer reasonably believes that it may result in serious public disorder, et cetera. That is the precise opposite of the hon. and learned Gentleman's case.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. It is the use of the phrase "et cetera" that gives away where he is wrong, because "et cetera" includes the right of a senior police officer to order an assembly to move if he believes that there will be "serious disruption to the life of the community". Quite apart from involving a very subjective judgment or belief, it also involves the police officer in an interpretation of what will be serious disruption to the life of the community. In my constituency in mid-Wales, which is not, on the whole, prone to demonstrations and assemblies, on the day following the American bombing of Libya there were two peaceful assemblies, one in the country town of Welshpool, the other in the country town of Newtown. It was a very unusual occurrence in each of those towns. They were peaceful assemblies and, judging


by the newspaper photographs, extremely respectable and respected citizens took part. They assembled to protest against the British Government's error of judgment, as they perceived it, in allowing American F111s to fly from bases in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). I think that he wants to intervene.

Mr. Cash: I intervene briefly only to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman may remember that Welshpool is where Llewelyn died.

Mr. Carlile: If the hon. Gentleman had been a little more straightforward with us, he would have repeated what he said earlier from a sedentary position and I should have asked him to withdraw it.
It would be quite wrong for a police officer to be empowered to tell an assembly like that which, legitimately in my view, is protesting publicly and seeking signatures for a petition, to go into a hall or back street because it happens to be holding up the traffic. On one occasion I saw a demonstration in a village by ladies with prams and pushchairs, who, because a child had been injured the day before in a road traffic accident, were protesting about the lack of a pedestrian crossing. They could have been caught by clause 14 merely because they were holding up the traffic on the main road. It is outrageous for hon. Members to seek to give police officers a discretion which, as the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said, will often be severely misunderstood—a discretion to intervene in such assemblies and to try to move them on. Many police officers—indeed, most police officers—are unhappy about the discretion which is invested in them in the clause. That is a discretion which they would be willing to undertake, as opposed to compelled to undertake if this clause is enacted, only if it was set out in a much clearer framework which enabled them to know what the rights of the public are, not just giving them a discretionary slate of prohibitions.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: On what authority does the hon. and learned Gentleman say that most police officers are opposed to this provision?

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman talks to some police officers, just as I talk to some police officers. From the conversations that I have had with police officers—not union officials but ordinary bobbies—I understand that they are unhappy about this provision. The hon. Gentleman appears to have a slightly different opinion. No doubt we shall hear from him in due course.
The clause as it stands imposes no duty on the police to recognise that the purpose of an assembly should be taken into account. It does not require the police to consider, for example, whether the purpose of an assembly relates to the affairs of the community, such as the pedestrian crossing protest to which I referred. It gives what some regard—perhaps it is slightly overstating the case—as draconian powers to the police. It gives them the ability to say, on the widest grounds of alleged "disruption", that a meeting must take place elsewhere.
The clause as it appears in this Bill is outside what would be its proper context. Of course, if one set out in positive form the right of peaceful assembly—I and my colleagues would say that it should be, as part of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated in

our domestic law—one would be entitled under article 11(2) of the convention to set out a lawful series of prohibitions within the terms of the convention. That is the proper context for provisions of this general nature. This Bill is not.

Mr. Lyell: I speak in strong support of the clause as an important part of the Public Order Bill. I was not surprised that it was opposed by the Labour party, but I was interested that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, should also oppose it. If one considers the major public disorder that can be caused not only by the enormous demonstrations which we saw at Orgreave, Wapping or Warrington, but the way in which ruffians can describe themselves as a peace convoy and descend on a whole community, the way in which the villagers of Molesworth can be completely swamped by people, albeit most of them thoroughly sincere, the way that militant animal rights protestors can sometimes descend on farms and homesteads, the way in which the "Stop the City" campaign or a major demonstration on Oxford street can bring the life of a community into serious disruption, is it unreasonable for the police to have powers, when they fear serious disruption to the life of the community, serious public disorder or serious damage to property, to say, "Stand back. Move on. Demonstrate, but go to some more suitable place"? That is not preventing peaceful demonstration but preventing what should be a peaceful demonstration from turning into a riot or a rowdy mob, which is the denial rather than the protection of liberty. That is the essence of the clause and why, reasonably interpreted, as it will be, and checked by the courts, as it can be, it is central and important to the Bill and should be supported.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It should be said that the police service was not happy at the task that it had to undertake last year during the miners' strike. The police found the duties that fell upon them distasteful, damaging to their relations with the community and a heavy burden on them individually. They nevertheless carried out their duties effectively. In no way did they allow the distinction between their duties under the criminal law to be confused with the Government's trade union legislation, which is an entirely separate matter.
After the scenes that we all saw on television and many of which I saw personally, it would be outrageous if a Bill which purported to deal with public order did not contain a clause such as this. I appreciate the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). I congratulate him on his appearance at the Dispatch Box and on his contribution to the Committee. I hope that he will accept, however, that, taking account of the problems confronted by the police, and which the public observed, it would be nothing less than a dereliction of duty if the House failed to tackle the problem of serious disruption.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) in congratulating the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) on speaking from the Dispatch Box so soon after arriving in the House. I am sure that he has deserved that promotion, to say nothing of his contribution to the Standing Committee. Although his speech might have been


excellent in rhetorical content and in terms of mastery of brief, I cannot share much joy or rapture at it because he elected to argue that we should have deleted clause 14.
At least the hon. Member was at the Committee when we last debated the inclusion of clause 14. He was present with three other Labour Members when the Committee decided, by four votes to 10, that the clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill. I make that observation because no vote was cast by the representative of the Social Democratic party/Liberal alliance, who was absent then, as he often was. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) tried to make good that omission in his speech tonight. He does himself no credit when he suggests that the clause has no place in a public order Bill. It is essential that there are changes in the public order law governing static assemblies.
I remind the hon. and learned Member, because he was not a member of the Committee, that, in the Metropolitan police district, of the incidents of severe public disorder, eight involved processions, three involved meetings and six involved assemblies. Since 1980 we have witnessed serious disturbances on the picket lines during the miners' dispute, at Warrington during an industrial dispute and now at Wapping. Those are examples of serious disorders resulting from static assemblies. I have to remind the House in firm tones that the requirement to trigger conditions imposed on assemblies—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Prisons

10 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the situation in the prisons. There have been a number of serious developments during the course of the evening. At Northeye prison near Bexhill-on-Sea, prisoners this evening set fire to an office, the kitchen, the library and some other wooden structure. There have been no reported casualties. The staff on duty were obliged to withdraw to the gates for their own safety and some prisoners went on the rampage. Parts of the prison have been burnt out. The governor established a command post in the officers' club and, on my latest information, it is still unsafe for the fire brigade to enter the premises.
Off-duty staff have returned to the prison indicating that they are anxious to help restore the situation, irrespective of the present industrial action. The police are at the perimeter of the prison, although it appears that some prisoners have escaped. Some 60 prisoners at Lewes prison in Sussex are out of their cells in one wing and probably seven are on the roof.
In Bristol prison there is a serious situation. Prisoners have broken out of their cells. The governor has felt obliged to call in the police in order to maintain control of the prison. There are reports of minor trouble at three other prisons.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This is a very serious statement. I make it clear right away that we shall expect another statement from the Home Secretary tomorrow afternoon and, if the situation is not in hand by them, we shall expect the Government to bring about another debate right away. If the Government do not do that, we shall be seeking your agreement for such a debate, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 10.
This is a very grave situation and it is right that the Home Secretary has given this statement this evening. It is on the record that we warned the Government—[Interruption.]—we warned the Government as recently as yesterday about the delicate and dangerous nature of this crisis, and we spoke of the nation's prisons as a tinder box. Yesterday, the Home Secretary saw fit to dismiss the warnings that we gave. We now face a position the consequences of which cannot be calculated or forecast. The decline of law and order has spread to the prisons themselves.
Yesterday I drew attention to the contingency plans for this dispute at the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Home Secretary responded by saying that it was right that there should be contingency plans. However, Mr. Jarman of the executive of the Prison Officers' Association said this evening that at Northeye prison contingency plans were not brought into operation. Can the Home Secretary confirm that, and can he explain it?
Before there are further disturbing developments, I appeal to the Home Secretary to abandon the preconditions for talks that he laid down yesterday. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That's right—give in to anarchy."] Give in to anarchy? The anarchy has been created by the


intransigence of the Home Secretary—anarchy which I warned the Home Secretary about yesterday and which the Home Secretary rejected with disdain.
The prison officers at Northeye prison this evening have shown their sense of duty by returning to duty, to try to remedy the situation despite the dispute. Let the Home Secretary respond in the same spirit by accepting the offer of the Prison Officers Association, to suspend industrial action while talks take place. That would be the proper response in this dangerous situation. [AN HON. MEMBER : "It is called blackmail".] This dispute must be solved quickly. Let action be taken now to bring that about, or the responsibility will rest plainly with the Home Secretary.

Mr. Hurd: The only factual question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me was about the Sussex police. As I said in my statement, they have been in action in support of the prison authorities at Northeye through the evening, so their role in the matter has already proved extremely helpful. I think that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman tonight into the rigmarole of contentious statements with which he finished.
My information is incomplete, but I thought it right to come to the House and say what I knew without embroidery and without any allocation of responsibility. There will and must be an opportunity to discuss these matters. It will be necessary for me to report again to the House tomorrow afternoon. I rejected no warnings, and I yield to no one in my desire, as I made clear yesterday, to bring this unnecessary dispute to an end at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend urge the leaders of the Prison Officers Association to follow the example set this evening by their members at Northeye, who were off duty and who all came in to see what they could do to help in this difficult situation? When it is under control, will my right hon. Friend immediately instigate an inquiry, bearing in mind the considerable anxiety that will be felt in the Bexhill community? Will he bear it in mind that for the past two years, concern has been expressed about staffing ratios at Northeye? In view of what has happened, will he include that aspect in the inquiry?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend, and join him in the tribute that he paid. The format of the inquiry into these events, which have been not just at one prison, is one of the things that I shall consider swiftly, as well as its scope.

Mr. Alex Carlile: In commending the Home Secretary on coming to the House so promptly to make his statement, may I ask him, when he comes to the House again tomorrow, to explain why the Government have not heeded warnings given by the noble Lord Whitelaw when he was Home Secretary some five years ago about the dangerous situation that was being created by overcrowding in the prisons? Will he tell the House tomorrow why the Government did not take action to resolve the manning issues giving rise to the present dispute long ago? Will he confirm tomorrow that it is now recognised that the time has come for the dispute to be settled, and settled quickly on the basis of discussions without any preconditions on either side?

Mr. Hurd: My noble Friend not only realised the dangers of overcrowding but acted to prevent and cure

them. That was the origin of the prison building programme that is now under way. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the sooner this dispute is brought to an end, the better. I believe that the offer that I made on 22 April provides a basis for a fair resolution of the dispute.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept praise from this side of the House for coming so quickly to the House, making a straightforward, honest statement, and giving a commitment to return tomorrow to elaborate on it? Will he also accept that there seems to be little link in Lewes between the prison officers' dispute and the illegal actions taken by the prisoners, which are all the more sad because of the recategorisation of many of the prisoners and the reorganisation of the regimes and of the staffing to meet those new regimes there? Therefore, when he institutes an inquiry, as I am sure he will, will my right hon. Friend please bring it clearly to the notice of the officers and everybody else concerned that this seems to be an illegal uprising which should be treated as such and no more?

Mr. Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for his first remarks. I am aware, as he is, of the excellent work which has been done over the years at Lewes prison.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the face of this further breakdown in law and order and this dangerous state of affairs, may I say from past experience that in no way should any hon. Member support insurrection, arson and what has just gone on? My party does not do that. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rees: But we are not prepared to take this stuff about the Conservative party being the only party concerned about law and order. The House is concerned, and we support the Home Secretary. But tonight he should call the POA into his office and should say, "Suspend your action. Come back in the morning and talk." Otherwise, the breakdown in law and order will become worse, and no amount of Saatchi and Saatchi words will deal with it.

Mr. Hurd: I am not dealing with the matter with Saatchi and Saatchi words, and I hope that the House will not do so either. My information is as yet incomplete, so tonight I do not want to enter much further into the details of what has occurred, or into the right steps to be taken in future. Tomorrow there will certainly be an opportunity to do that, but tonight I would rather not say things which in the light of fuller information may look odd or foolish.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Although I congratulate those prison officers who have rallied round, is it not the case that the average earnings of a prison officer are £15,000 a year, of which some 30 per cent. is overtime? Is the country not entitled to ask that such officers should be prepared to negotiate without preconditions?

Mr. Hurd: I confirm that figure.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are in the middle of debate on an important Bill, and that the statement concerns insurrections in three prisons, not the general position.

Mr. Alfred Morris: When was the last occasion that the prison officers of this country were in such bitter conflict with the Government of the day?

Mr. Hurd: There has been a history of discussion, disturbance and conflict. The House will remember the dispute five or six years ago. However, that is not relevant to the immediate problem before us, which is how to resolve the present position.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the governor of Bristol prison has had to call in the police will inevitably lead to a disastrous decline in morale in that prison, whatever the outcome of the dispute? I hope that my right hon. Friend will encourage the governor of the prison to look not only to the POA but to individual members of staff, who may well hold different views, inresolving the dispute. Does he agree that the most immediate action necessary to ensure that Bristol prison once again works as a prison is to re-establish the morale that has clearly broken down?

Mr. Hurd: We need first to re-establish control in the prisons. After that, the question of morale becomes very important.

Mr. Eric S. Hafer: I know prison officers well, because there are many of them in my constituency, which has one of the biggest prisons in the country. Does not the Home Secretary agree that they play an important role in maintaining law and order, and are dedicated to doing their job in the interest of the community as a whole? Should not the Home Secretary and the Government listen to what they say? They are on the spot, and have full responsibility for looking after the prisoners. Over the years, particularly in the past few years, they have warned that the situation was becoming critical. Is it not time that the Government decided to begin serious discussions with them instead of adopting the rather arrogant attitude that some Ministers have taken on the radio? Will the Government conduct their discussions properly so that a settlement can be reached and the problem can be solved as quickly as possible?

Mr. Hurd: I have twice had serious discussions with the POA. I agree about the importance of the work that prison officers do.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the vast majority of prison officers are honourable and decent men and women who are deeply shocked by what has happened this evening. I suspect that they will be utterly horrified to learn of the Opposition's cynical manipulation of events for party political reasons.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should not have leapt into his usual act without being in full possession of the facts.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Whether the Home Secretary likes it or not, he is the Minister responsible. When something for which he is responsible goes wrong, we are entitled to question and criticise him, if that criticism is justified. Given all that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and their colleagues have said over the years about law and order, did he ever think that he would be standing at the Dispatch Box at 10 pm on a Wednesday

night to tell the people of this country that the prisons are on fire and the prisoners are running riot? What sort of law and order society are the Government trying to cultivate?

Mr. Hurd: Of course I accept that I am the Minister responsible. If I did not accept that, I would not be standing here or volunteering a statement. If this debate is to do any of us any credit, its level must rise above that of rhetorical questions.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who are faced with the difficult task of restoring order in the prisons will not thank any hon. Member for making their task more difficult by stoking up the emotions? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: In so far as the police become involved, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they have all the necessary resources of mutual aid if that becomes necessary? Would not the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) have done better to appeal to that small minority of prison officers who are taking industrial action to go back and do their work quickly?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am in touch with the Sussex police about mutual aid.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: While in no way wishing to endorse the policies, some of the working practices or actions of the POA, is it not true that if the Home Secretary and some of his immediate predecessors had heeded the sensible and serious proposals put forward for some years by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by members of the public for a substantial reducion in the prison population without endangering the public, we would not be in such a dangerous position? Inmates, staff and the public are all in danger. In that sense at least, are not the Home Secretary and the Government fully culpable for the crisis that now exists?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the subject and has consistently advanced the view that, in some way which is not clearly specified, we should prevent the courts from sending to prison people whom they think should be sent there. [Interruption.] That is a fair summary of the hon. Gentleman's clearly held and consistently expressed view. I understand the reasoning behind it, as he has expressed his view clearly, but I do not think that that is a possible course.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: To the extent that the present problems are created by overcrowding in our prisons, does my right hon. Friend agree that the answer is not to change our penal policy but to accept that much of the responsibility falls on the Opposition because of their cut in the prison building programme?

Mr. Hurd: The fact is that there was no prison building programme when the Conservative party came to power. My predecessor before last instituted a programme which has been carried on steadily ever since.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does not the gravity of the situation demonstrate all too clearly how dangerous and foolish it was for the Government to break off negotiations this weekend in the face of an offer from the Prison Officers Association to suspend its action?

Mr. Hurd: That offer was not honoured. The industrial action continued. I gave an account of those proceedings to the House yesterday. I believe that the stance I took at that time was reasonable.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary said that he would make a further statement tomorrow. I shall endeavour tomorrow to call those hon. Members who rose this evening but were not called.

Public Order Bill

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In responding to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge, I was making the point that, in the Metropolitan police district, static assemblies and meetings contributed substantially to the severe public disorders between 1974 and 1980. I deduce from that that the House would be extremely foolish to accept the advice of the Opposition that clause 14 should be deleted from the Bill.
I remind the House that, in extending to assemblies the proposals contained in the 1936 Act, the Government did not act in a fit of pique or a sudden thirst for additional powers. We acted on the advice of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We acted with care and had discussions. We acted in a way that was consistent with the Government's purposes without ensuring that an advance notice requirement in respect of assemblies should be undertaken, but that a power to ban should not.
The police already maintain a presence at most demonstrations or pickets. They do so to fulfil their paramount duty in maintaining the Queen's peace. Clause 14 will not require the deployment of more officers or the wasteful use of police resources which might he more profitably employed in fighting crime. It will give the police effective powers to prevent crime by preventing disorder.
The rights to assemble, to picket and to demonstrate are not absolute rights. They should never be an excuse for intimidation or disorder. Every citizen has a right to live his life in peace and the right to protection under the law.
I said in Committee and to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge, who referred to it in his opening address, that I would advise police officers, in the circular on the Bills provisions, that they should bear in mind the traditional rights of protest and the traditional freedom of assembly which have been so widely observed for many years when they interpret their obligations under the provisions of clause 14. I should like to place that undertaking which I gave in Committee on the record.
In part answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, I must say that there will be, although not in the statute, a clear expression of the rights to protest which people have traditionally enjoyed conveyed to officers as part of the context in which they execute their duties.
Clause 14 confers no power to ban assemblies. That is a most important point for the House to recognise. The Clause contains powers to enable major mischiefs to he avoided—to avoid serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community and intimidation of individuals. Do the Opposition seriously believe that the civil liberties of pickets and the right to demonstrate include the right to cause such evils? Surely not. Do they believe that the police should have powers to prevent these evils? Surely they do. Or is the Opposition's new-found, late interest in the problems of crime and of law and order, which is of such concern to the people we serve, a vote-catching operation, carefully timed for individual elections?
The Government believe that the merits of the clause and the bankruptcy of the Opposition's argument are in


complete contrast. The Government believe in a balance between the right to assemble and the right of the individual to go about his business in peace, and so do the British people. They will take note of the Opposition's claim that to question the rights of a picket to intimidate or cause disorder is authoritarianism, and they will support our attempts to provide additional protection for the individual citizen from the bully boys and the thugs on the picket lines or elsewhere. I commend the clause. It should remain in the Bill as a cardinal principle of public order.

Mr. Clelland: I remind the Minister that we have seen more lawlessness and disorder under this Government than under any other Government in living memory. The clause does not seek to improve law and order. It will not prevent one riot or many of the problems to which the Minister drew attention. It will restrict the individual liberty and freedoms of people who want to protest against the type of policies pursued by the Government. We shall vote against the clause.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 225.

Division No. 165]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dubs, Alfred


Alton, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eastham, Ken


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Barnett, Guy
Ewing, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beith, A. J.
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Forrester, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Foulkes, George


Blair, Anthony
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Boyes, Roland
Freud, Clement


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
George, Bruce


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Godman, Dr Norman


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Gourlay, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Campbell, Ian
Hancock, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harman, Ms Harriet


Canavan, Dennis
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Haynes, Frank


Clay, Robert
Heffer, Eric S.


Clelland, David Gordon
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Geraint


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Janner, Hon Greville


Corbett, Robin
John, Brynmor


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Craigen, J. M.
Kennedy, Charles


Crowther, Stan
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Lambie, David


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert





Livsey, Richard
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robertson, George


McCartney, Hugh
Rogers, Allan


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rooker, J. W.


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


McTaggart, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Madden, Max
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Marek, Dr John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Martin, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meadowcroft, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Michie, William
Stott, Roger


Mikardo, Ian
Straw, Jack


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Nellist, David
Tinn, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Torney, Tom


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert


Park, George
White, James


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Gordon


Penhaligon, David
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. James Hamilton and


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Ancram, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Best, Keith
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Body, Sir Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gow, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Harvey, Robert


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, J.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, John
Henderson, Barry


Couchman, James
Hickmet, Richard


Critchley, Julian
Hicks, Robert


Crouch, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Dicks, Terry
Hind, Kenneth






Hirst, Michael
Major, John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Malins, Humfrey


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Malone, Gerald


Holt, Richard
Maples, John


Howard, Michael
Marland, Paul


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Marlow, Antony


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Mates, Michael


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Mather, Carol


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hunter, Andrew
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mellor, David


Jackson, Robert
Merchant, Piers


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Miscampbell, Norman


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Monro, Sir Hector


Key, Robert
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Mudd, David


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Neale, Gerrard


Knowles, Michael
Needham, Richard


Knox, David
Nelson, Anthony


Lamont, Norman
Newton, Tony


Lang, Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Latham, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Lawler, Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pattie, Geoffrey


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Pawsey, James


Lightbown, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lilley, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Powell, William (Corby)


Lord, Michael
Powley, John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lyell, Nicholas
Price, Sir David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Proctor, K. Harvey


Macfarlane, Neil
Raffan, Keith


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Maclean, David John
Rathbone, Tim


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas





Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Terlezki, Stefan


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Thornton, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thurnham, Peter


Rost, Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ryder, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waddington, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Silvester, Fred
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Watson, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Speed, Keith
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Spencer, Derek
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Raymond


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sumberg, David



Taylor, John (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 10, line 25 leave out 'any conditions which prescribe' and insert 'such conditions as to'.

No. 46, in page 11, line 3 after 'constable', insert 'in uniform'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 16

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 47 in page 11, leave out line 26 and insert 'In this Part'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to consider also the following: Amendment No. 49, in page 11, line 32, leave out 'a public' and insert 'any'.
Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52.

Mr. Shaw: I should like to deal briefly with the Government amendments before considering amendment No. 49. Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52 bring the definition of "Public place" in clause 16 into line with the wording of section 1(1)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The other amendment makes minor drafting changes.

Mr. Lyell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendment No. 49 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the provisions of the Bill from public places as defined in the Bill to any place which is open to the air. The sound reasons for doing that become immediately apparent. We agreed when we discussed the previous clause, and the House decided, that it would be a valuable power for the police to be able to get a demonstration likely to cause serious public disorder, serious damage to property, serious disruption to the life of the community or intimidation to people, to move to a more suitable location, or to stand back from the gates of the work place where the demonstration may have arisen, or to stop blocking the highway or snarling up the centre of the community in which it was taking place. Unfortunately, as the clause and the Bill are drafted, that applies only to what is a public place within the definition of the Bill. In a great many communities, public places and private land are almost inextricably inter-mixed. Therefore, the good effects of the clause could be made unworkable.
I should like to explain that in relation to the problems that arise in rural communities. These problems can be categorised as those involving the so-called "Peace Convoy"; and the problems caused by the large numbers of albeit sincere people who descend on communities like Greenham common and Molesworth. There are also problems involving animal protesters, some of whom are sincere and who arrive in large numbers but who are all too often accompanied by militant animal rights protesters who might invade a factory farm. There are also problems with the large demonstrations of the type witnessed at Orgrave or Wapping, involving industrial disputes.
It is important that the police should have effective powers, and not powers the ambit of which depends on whether the public assembly takes place on a highway or in a public place, which is defined in the Bill as land to which the public have access either on payment or by express or implied permission. The powers of the police must not be frustrated by the public being allowed to move on to what becomes the Tom Tiddler's ground of private land.
I can illustrate the point by citing Molesworth or some factory farm. For example, a large number of people may

have appeared to demonstrate in a narrow country lane near to Molesworth. These people may have snarled up the entrance to the village or completely swamped the local community, who all too often regard themselves as second-class citizens in their own homes. The police may want the demonstrators to move to the village green or to an open space which is more suitable for the demonstration, but some of the demonstrators may decide, because they know the law—and that is a good thing—to cross a fence into a farmer's field. As soon as they do that, the excellent power provided by clause 14 immediately disappears, as the assembly ceases to be in a public place in the context of the Bill.
Let us consider the case of a large number of demonstrators arriving at a factory farm—say a broiler house farm—demonstrating against the treatment of the chickens that we eat in such large numbers. The demonstrators may get on to the farmyard, and some of them who are of violent intent will use the presence of the others to provide cover enabling them to commit criminal damage, or to terrorise the people on the farm. One of the examples given by Ministers of the good sense of the clause is that the police will be able to tell the demonstrators to stand back by the farm gate if the demonstration is blocking the road. However, as soon as the people get on to the farmyard, or the farmer's land around the buildings, the powers under the clause disappear, and the ability of the police to make good use of these preventive powers has gone.
The powers under the clause can be considered in the wider context of the serious problems of the peace convoys and of major, and perhaps hippy-type, demonstrations which I know are a matter of great interest to many of my hon. Friends, who may catch your eye in this short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), whose constituency includes Glastonbury, and for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), who is with me on this clause, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
The peace convoy, which has little or nothing to do with peace, tends to descend on a whole community—in the case of Salisbury, in several hundreds—and completely disrupt the life of the area. Immediately round Stonehenge, to which the public have access as of right or invitation, these powers will apply, but as soon as large groups spill over on to farm land or private land, the powers of the police to say, "Move on", or, "Stand back" disappear.
This is illogical in the context of the Bill, because the other useful powers of this valuable Bill—whether the major powers on riot, unlawful assembly and affray under clauses 1, 2 and 3, or the other powers under clauses 4 and 5, on what used to be called conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace, and is now conduct likely to cause violence and disorderly conduct—apply both to public and private land regardless, and rightly so. There is no logical distinction that should prevent these prophylactic powers from also so applying. The object of the powers under clause 14 is to be able to say to the demonstrators in number, "Stand back" and to prevent a clash from happening in the first place. Although it would not solve the peace convoy or the Molesworth problems, that is a valuable power in the hands of the police.
I thank the Association of Chief Police Officers for its helpful discussions, but I disagree with its objections to


this extension. The police are anxious that they should not become the bailiffs of every private landlord, a point with which I wholly agree, but there is no real danger that they will. The powers in clause 14 are wholly discretionary, at the instance of the senior police officer present, and can only be exercised, quite rightly, in the circumstances of serious disruption of the community, serious public disorder or serious damage to property. I can say with confidence that there would be no question of the operational decision of a senior police officer as to whether or not to use such powers being capable of being challenged by mandamus in the High Court. There is no question of the courts forcing a police officer to use his powers in a particular instance, and I can say that with some confidence as a matter of the law.
Nor do I believe that there is any danger of chief constables being browbeaten into using these powers. I have the highest respect for the chief constables with whom I have had the privilege of working as a Member of Parliament, and I have not found them to be men who were likely to be browbeaten by any landowner or farmer if they believed that the course of action which they were invited to take was unwise. They are, on the contrary, strong and robust men, as we would expect them to be, and they are well capable of protecting themselves against undue pressure.
I test this valuable power against what happened at Orgreave. Let us suppose that there is a large crowd of demonstrators, most of whom wish to be peaceful, but some of whom might be militant and might be jostling and pushing, and the police can see that there is likely to be major turmoil outside the gates of a workplace, preventing those who, in the normal life of the community, wish to pass and repass to go to work, from doing so. If, as I believe happened at Orgreave, and certainly happens at other work premises, the road that leads to the gate passes through private land as opposed to a public place, the prophylactic powers of the police to say, "Stand back", would not apply, and they would have to fall back on common law powers or into that difficult area where sometimes the police are forced to stretch their powers, albeit with the right motives, to achieve the right solution.
It is wrong to put the police into that position. The extension of the powers to public and private land without distinction, simply on the basis that they are properly to be used for public order purposes, would be the wiser way to proceed, and I commend that route to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I recognise that it may not be easy to deal with the amendment tonight, but I ask them to discuss the matter further before the Bill concludes its passage in another place.

Mr. Chris Smith: I oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment and urge the Minister not to accept it too readily. Although I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's motives, the effect of his amendment would be to create a criminal offence of trespass in the open air for persons entering private land for purposes completely other than those which he mentioned when introducing the amendment. My anxiety relates to groups of people out for a country walk, who could be caught under the clause if the amendment were accepted. I know that that is not the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention, but it would undoubtedly be a potential effect of the clause

if the amendment was accepted. I am worried that legitimate purposes of open-air recreation might be endangered if the clause was amended.
The anxiety of many hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, about what happened with the so-called peace convoy last year—the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is in the chamber—is beginning to resurface as we approach consideration of what might happen this year. With or without the Bill and the amendment, unless sensible and practical discussions continue about what is likely to occur when the convoy attempts to hold a festival at Stonehenge, I fear that there is likely to be trouble. That is something that we would all wish to avoid.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment would run the risk of turning the police into the patrolling bailiffs of privately owned land. That is not something that Opposition Members wish to see.

Mr. Robert Key: This amendment, so eloquently moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell), which I support, addresses itself to the false distinction between public and private land for the purposes of public order. In general, the civil law is powerless to deal with incursions on to private land before they have happened, where there is no event or festival to ban and where no one knows the identity or whereabouts of the potential trespassers. This is deeply unsatisfactory. The landowner, whether public or private, simply has to wait for trespass to occur before being able to act. The number of trespassers can grow by many hundreds in the course of a day, so, however speedy the lawyers or the courts, the problem by then has become severe, something that we all wish to avoid.
Although the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which came into force on 1 January this year will make any mass invasion of, for instance, my constituency by the peace convoy and others quite different from last year, this Bill, unless it is amended, will do little to remedy the defects in the law which make flaming June such a misery for so many in south Wiltshire. It will, however, I suspect, help with the problem of illegal hare coursing.
For example, the National Trust and English Heritage and most local farmers will seek injunctions in the High Court, banning the so-called Stonehenge free festival. An injunction is a fine remedy, but one must be able to identify the trespasser in advance, be able to serve him with proceedings and have enough evidence that he intends to trespass. Furthermore, summary possession procedure—that is, order 113—is slow and cumbersome, and will always suffer from the disadvantage that plaintiffs are usually too late to prevent damage and to stop large numbers arriving, as at the white horse in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters).
Also the procedure takes at least a week. It is very expensive. It allows defendants to take advantage of their wrongful possession by dreaming up technical points of law. And, of course, judges are ever vigilant on behalf of unrepresented defendants, many of whom are intelligent and well educated but whose case has no legal merit whatever. The judge is assiduous to make sure that the landowner has dotted the i's and crossed the t's, to the extent that the lawful owners of the land are frustrated.


This means that in too many cases unmeritorious and unwelcome squatters can stay beyond any reasonable time, and trade on it. In short, the law is not simply an ass, it is ridden on by such people, who plan their activities accordingly.
This amendment also addresses itself to a consequence of the false distinction between public and private land, the problem of criminal trespass, referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The whole matter was lengthily debated by the Law Commission and the Law Reform Committee before the passing of the Criminal Law Act 1977. Section 7 of the Act brings residential premises into the ambit of the criminal offence but omits non-residential premises. If trespass were a criminal offence, the concept of deterrence would be introduced.
It could be fairly argued that Stonehenge, the white horse, Savernake and all squatting activities of a similar kind in recent years demonstrate how unfortunate it was that in 1977 Parliament, against the Law Commission's recommendations, decided to exclude non-residential premises from section 7.
The amendment has deterrence value. The whole country is anxious to avoid scenes such as those witnessed at Cholderton near Stonehenge last year when about 500 hippies, determined to break a High Court injunction, chose to confront the police and precipitated the much-reported fight that led to mass arrests. We all wish to avoid a repetition of such scenes. By amending the clause to include an assembly in any place, whether publicly owned or privately owned, we shall remove a contentious distinction that perpetuates the notion that public order should be different on opposite sides of the same fence.
11 pm
The Bill is about preventing violent clashes and violent behaviour and about coping with disorders, but there is also an important moral dimension to it, which I draw to the attention of the House in support of the amendment. Without the amendment, those wishing to hold an assembly in a private place will continue to exert some kind of moral blackmail over those who wish to enjoy their own land in peace. This will focus, in my constituency, on Stonehenge. However, the Bishop of Salisbury, Bishop John Baker, a former chaplain to Mr. Speaker and best known, perhaps, for his moral judgments on nuclear issues, said, with reference to the so-called Stonehenge free festival and the mass trespass by those assembled there:
The experience of years proved that the event was a major social and human evil. The great majority of people living in nearby communities hated the event, and wish it to cease. The Church cannot and must not support such an event in any way … it does not. We do support the local communities in their desire to go about their lives in peace. We do support landowners, both private and corporate, in their legal right to refuse the use of their land, and in their moral right not to be pressured into conceding it. We do support the police in their duty to uphold the law of the country. The way to prevent violence and confrontation this summer is for those who are thinking of defying that law to stay away … They have no encouragement of any kind from our Church to do otherwise.
I support the amendment, which would contribute to the peace of our community.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I shall be brief, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) have already gone over the course. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said that one of the grounds upon which he would object to the amendment was that it could catch those people who went out for a country walk. Before any offence would be committed under clause 14, the police officer must reasonably believe that what is happening may result in serious public disorder, or serious damage to property, et cetera. I do not believe for one moment that by blurring the distinction between public and private property, as the amendment tries to do, we should catch those people who go out for a country walk.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman conveniently omitted from his list of reasonable grounds that a police officer might have the crucial phrase
serious disruption to the life of the community.
That is the contentious point, as we saw in our debate on the clause relating to assemblies, and it might well form a point of contention between a group of people with legitimate open air interests and a landowner.

Mr. Alexander: I did not refer to those words, because I was absolutely certain that no couple who went out for a private walk could possibly come within the hon. Gentleman's description.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will accept the amendment. If it is not accepted, there will be a loophole in the law and we shall do a disservice to those innocent people whose lives over so many years have been disrupted by protesters and disrupters who care nothing for other people's property. Those innocent people expect this Bill to protect them. As it stands, all it does is to provide a loophole for sophisticated protesters who know what they are doing, and it leads the police to pass by on the other side. I urge seriously a change of heart on this amendment.

Sir Hector Monro: I also would like to bring home to Home Office Ministers just how strongly we feel about this issue in the countryside. The improved definition offered by amendment No. 49 would be beneficial and strengthen the arm of the law in maintaining the peace and quiet that we expect. We believe in harmony in the countryside, not confrontation.
I am a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, so it is obvious that I am keen on conservation and the use of the countryside for formal and informal recreation. It is time that we tried to limit the disruption which sometimes occurs. The militant demonstrator and other protestor is quite out of place in the countryside, and the sooner that there is more discipline so that everyone can enjoy the countryside, the better. This small but important amendment would be a major step in the right direction.
The amendment would be especially helpful to some farms that have been attacked by those who want to release animals. Sometimes, they are foolish enough to release mink, which cause infinitely more damage and cruelty to other animals than they suffer in farms. Such people's objectives are ill thought out. The National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association are anxious that we should strengthen the law in the interests of their members.
Farmers, whether they be owner-occupiers or tenants, and landlords would feel that they were getting support from a Conservative Government if the Home Office felt able to accept the amendment. I give it my warm support.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I support amendment No. 49. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) covered most of the ground, but my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned Stonehenge. The peace convoy decided to separate and go north, and it has caused great problems in other parts of the country. I feel sorry for my constituents in Shropshire who have suffered the problems caused by people who have moved into the area, and continue to move from site to site to keep ahead of the landowner, whether it be the National Coal Board or the district council. They seem determined to keep one step ahead of the law.
I hope that the amendment will be accepted. I believe that our constituents expect us to deal with a problem that is causing them great anxiety. They are entitled to peace and quiet at home. They should not be subjected to such noise and disturbance. They are confused, to say the least—they cannot understand why the police, to whom they turn, are powerless.
Is it possible to speed up the procedure of getting orders? One of my parish councils has suggested that registrars might be allowed to deal with such requests. That council, the district council and the development corporation find that it takes a long time to get the necessary orders. Meanwhile, the people concerned have moved to other land. I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot accept the amendment, he will at least be able to offer the possibility of registrars issuing orders, so that the problems can be dealt with. If he cannot do that, I shall feel inclined to support the amendment.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I rise to support the amendment. My constituency includes Glastonbury, which is famous for its Arthurian legends and, like Stonehenge, attracts an annual influx of hippies, itinerants, travellers, whatever one may like to call them. Some of those groups pose a serious threat to public order. I know that I am not alone in this, because similar problems are encountered by my other hon. Friends in Somerset and Avon, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), who is in his place tonight. He is urgently dealing with a number of constituency cases now.
Those problems are becoming more difficult because of the attitude of the alliance, which is not represented in the Chamber at present. Somerset is temporarily controlled by a Lib-Lab pact, and there is no doubt that the alliance opposition to the Bill is sending entirely the wrong signals to potential troublemakers who are now making their summer plans about whether to visit Somerset and create local disorder.
I am not saying that the majority of visitors are necessarily violent and unwelcome. The majority are peaceful. They may create an annoyance, but it is part of the English tradition to deal with them in a spirit of give and take, live and let live. However, there is a minority of people, who should be dealt with by this clause, who take drugs and drive vehicles which are untaxed and unlicensed. They are not all from the same group; they are certainly not all members of the peace convoy. They go

by a number of different names. In my constituency we have had the mutants and the chaotics and a number of other anarchist groups who think that they are outside the law and outside society, except when it comes to drawing social security. That creates local resentment. Those people are prepared to take social security, clothes, food and medicine from society when they need them, but they put very little back into society.
It is when large numbers of that significant minority camp and gather in Somerset that they can be a real threat to the local community. I have witnessed some of the incidents. Hedges can be pulled up for firewood or used as public lavatories, which creates a health hazard, roads and lanes can be blocked, buildings can be vandalised and residents and shopkeepers can be threatened. There is a general feeling among my constituents that the existing, powers in the law are inadequate to cope with the growing problem.
We have the law of trespass. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) pointed out, that can be extremely slow and cumbersome. Many members of these groups know how to circumvent the law and move down the road to different land if faced with a possession order where they are camped. Many of them have access to very good legal advice. Perhaps some of them are lawyers who put on their beads and headbands when they go on holiday, who knows. I know that I have spoken to many of them who are far from being poor and in need of these camps. It is a summer activity and we should have much less sympathy for them than is sometimes shown by the Opposition.
All I want to do is give the police additional reserve powers that could be used if necessary. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) is right to say that this is not a bailiffs' charter. The police are reluctant to move or evict people unless there is a serious disruption and that may be the basis of their opposition to this amendment.
However, there is a growing problem. The Bill provides an opportunity, perhaps the last opportunity for some years, to respond to this problem. Certainly large numbers of people in the Wells division are looking for a positive response from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Cash: I wish to endorse most of my hon. Friends' comments. Together we have managed consistently to fight the battle against the peace convoy over a period of months, since the peace convoy came to our respective constituencies. I would like to thank the Home Secretary and the Minister for the courtesy and time they have given to us on a number of occasions and the good advice they have been able to offer. I would also like to mention the Association of Chief Police Officers which has also given its time and has provided advice while we have been discussing this matter. The Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union have been equally helpful.
The peace convoy arrived in Staffordshire and caused £85,000 of damage. That was an intolerable incursion. The anxiety and fear that were caused to my constituents, and the damage, dereliction and chaos that those people left behind, were intolerable. I cannot believe that the Labour party can resist this proposal, which would deal effectively with the problem. I would go further and say that, to its credit, Staffordshire county council, which is Labour controlled, did what it could to impress upon


Labour Members the fact that it wanted their help. The council is not receiving it, so Labour Members should be condemned by their own people.
The lawful enjoyment of rights by all is the essence of proper public order policy. The peace convoy and similar people operate in an environment and in a way that is totally contrary to the reasonable behaviour of ordinary civilised people.
We have to deal with the problem. It is a serious matter. The problem is escalating, and I thoroughly support the Government's efforts to deal with it in the Bill. Clause 14, in conjuction with clause 5 and other provisions, go a long way in dealing with that serious problem.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The police have raised some objections to what is proposed. They do not want to criminalise trespass. They do not want to be turned into the surrogate gamekeepers of private landowners. They feel that clause 14 is quite a lot to swallow and that adding this amendment to it would make it even more difficult But in this case, I believe that the police are wrong. It is best that I say so plainly.
There is a tendency to think that the public disorder problems are an urban phenomenon. Of course, most of them take place in the big cities, but the fact is that we are in the presence of increasing public disorder problems in the rural areas. My hon. Friends have all mentioned examples in their constituenies. The Committee discussed the matters in detail. In my constituency this summer, when it is proposed to hold the annual Mildenhall air show, there is not the slightest doubt that large numbers of people, peaceniks or others, will gather on private land. They will cause immense problems. There will be great concern among my constituents, and among the supporters of my party, if we say that we have put on the statute book a new Public Order Bill, yet it becomes clear that we have done nothing effective to deal with the problem. If that happens, I have fear that there will be considerable disenchantment with what we have done.
When he replies, my hon. Friend the Minister will fairly say that just as clause 5 as redrafted and agreed to by the House earlier can apply in a number of circumstances, for example in dealing with noise, so too, it can apply in this case. I agree that there is some evidence that it might, but it will be marginal. It will not tackle the problem. It will not prevent large hordes of troublemakers proceeding to occupy private land. It will not help the police get them off without pitched battles. None of us wants that to happen.
Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend, who has been so resaonable and sweet a Minister throughout the Committee and Report, to listen to the views of the House. With the exception of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), whose arguments I understand, we are in possession of a virtually unanimous request to the Government.

Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we discuss issues of police manpower and police budgets in counties, and when many of the counties about which we are speaking are controlled by a Liberal-SDP faction, it is intolerable that not one alliance Member has been present to debate this particularly important matter?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Alliance Members are undoubtedly absent proclaiming their commitment to rural policy in west Derbyshire. We also encountered that phenomenon in Committee.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was most unfair to give that description to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). I apologise to the House for my temporary absence, but I can assure the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, as he should know from reading our Committee proceedings, that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) shares our great interest in the affairs of rural areas. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problems to which the hon. and learned Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) eloquently adverted are not only encountered in Shropshire, which the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley) mentioned, but across the Shropshire-Welsh border, and that I share the concern expressed?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Sometimes we extend the courtesies of the House too far.
My hon. Friend the Minister has heard what has been said. He knows, as I know, the technical problems and the reservations of the police. It remains his job as a Minister to overcome them. I hope that he will take account of what has been said, and one way or another give hon. Members, who have spoken with experience, knowledge and foreboding of the consequences, if we fail to act, the comfort of words that will at least open the door to some action being taken in the other place on what is a genuinely serious problem.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) and supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Mr. Alexander), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) has provided a debate of some significance. I am not a bit surprised at that because in Committee, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) knows, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire gave us a substantial piece of his substantial mind on the issues relating to the law on trespass and the inadequacies of this clause.
All hon. Members, whether in government, on the Back Benches or, I suspect, in Opposition, share the feeling that the problems caused by groups, such as the peace convoy, have brought great distress and misfortune to our rural communities. There is no question but that we wish to find ways and mans of reducing that distress and misfortune.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Will my hon. Friend include the actions of Hells Angels, who have been of considerable inconvenience in Windsor, as he knows, and of whom Mrs. McSorley is the victim?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. Other groups, of which Hells Angels are one, cause substantial distress.
In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that such groups were the equivalent of mediaeval brigands. Wherever they have gone, they have shown a blatant disregard for the rights and the peace of the local inhabitants. We may also add to our condemnation of such activity those groups of so-called


animal rights protesters who, by trespassing on farm land and engaging in violent and threatening behaviour towards farmers and their families, are of genuine public concern.
In considering in Committee what best we might do, we undertook to have further discussions with the police and other interested parties. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and other hon. Friends have had similar discussions, which have been referred to this evening. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, although chief constables are not unanimous, the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers are such that it is clear that it is not persuaded of the need for an extension of the new powers under clause 14 in the way that my hon. and learned Friend proposes. The police remain of the view that their existing powers to deal with criminal damage and breach of the peace, together with the offences in clauses 1 to 5, should be sufficient to cope with any real mischief that is likely to arise.
I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire underestimates the powers that will be available to the police. I remind him that the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were not available during the disturbances which occurred with the peace convoy a year ago. Those powers came into force on 1 January.
Under the existing law, under the new offences and wider powers that are proposed in the Bill, and under the PACE powers, the police have power to enter private land and make arrests if there is a breach of the peace. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, they have powers to arrest anyone who has committed an offence if service of a summons is impracticable because of difficulties in establishing name and address. The Act gives the police powers to enter land to prevent serious damage to property. Under the Bill, all the public order offences which the House has been considering tonight will apply to both public and private land. We have deliberately extended the scope of clauses 4 and 5 to private land to catch the sort of behaviour in which peace convoys and other such groups indulge. Once the Bill is in force, anyone on private land who threatens violence or who behaves in a disorderly manner, or who is likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress, will commit an offence under sections 4 or 5, as they will become.
It follows that with this wide range of powers—the police have told us that this will follow—the police should be able to deal with the real mischief, which lies in criminal damage, threatening behaviour and intimidation by those who happen to be trespassers. The only offence that they will not have the power to deal with is simple trespass. The police are most emphatic that they do not want to become involved in the enforcement of private rights. I recognise the overall conclusion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that the police are wrong in the general stance that they have taken, but my hon. Friend recognised that involving the police in a greater extension of services to private landlords might well cause them substantial difficulty.
I think that we all recognise that the complaint of simple trespass remains a matter for the civil law. Equally, I think that we all recognise that the root of the problem facing landowners whose land is invaded by the peace convoy is the slow enforcement process of the civil law. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, who raised the matter specifically, that discussions that we have had with

colleagues recently have convinced us that we should seek to make representations to my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to ensure that he is fully aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. I remind my hon. Friends that in discussions previously the Country Landowners Association agreed to provide further information of instances where it has found the enforcement of the civil process both slow and inadequate to deal with the offences with which it has been concerned. I hope that it will respond and provide all possible evidence to enable us to discuss with the Lord Chancellor's Department what might be done to speed up and improve the process.
I reassure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire and my hon. Friends generally that we do not have a closed mind about the adequacy of the law to deal with groups like the peace convoy. All we are saying is that we should not rush into further legislation until the new police powers to which I have referred have been tried and tested. The police believe that the totality of powers available to them will be sufficient. We are not in the business of heaping extra powers on the police, for their own sake. We have been concerned throughout the discussion on the Bill to identify the powers that will be of practical value to the police.
11.30 pm
I must take note of the strength of feeling which hon. Members have expressed. I shall discuss the debate's conclusions and the unanimous view expressed by Conservative Members that further action is required in this direction. I shall consider the requests put to me by my hon. Friends, which were summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, for further action during the passage of the Bill.
However, I stress that a major change to the law on trespass is not something which we are presently minded to contemplate. We are prepared to consider the views expressed by hon. Members about their constituents' fears and their doubts that the laws we have already enacted and those we are in the process of enacting may not be sufficient. That is a state of mind which my hon. Friends have made very clear. I trust that it is not a state of the law which we can allow to remain for much longer.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 11, line 34, leave out 'includes' and insert 'means'.

No. 52, in page 11, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert—
(b) any place to which the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 17

PUBLISHING OR DISTRIBUTING

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 12, line 5, leave out from 'if' to end of line 7 and insert '—

(a) he intends by the publication or distribution of the matter to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result of the publication or distribution.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Mr. Lawrence: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 12, line 7, at end insert—
'(1A) The authority responsible for maintaining any public highway or passageway shall remove any such written matter


from the public highway or passageway or the curtilages adjacent thereto within fourteen days of receiving notice of the existence of such matter'.
Clause 17(1) makes it an offence for a person to make a threatening sign, writing or visual representation. I take it—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the use of devices such as spray paint and graffiti is threatening, abusive and insulting if the user intends hatred against a racial group. There is no point in making that an offence if the writing remains on the wall. If the person responsible is charged, convicted, fined or sent to prison, but what he wrote on the wall is still there and will be there until the cows come home, we will not have achieved a great deal.
My amendment would place on the local authority responsible for the highway, the passageway, the curtilage, the fence or the wall abutting the highway, the duty to remove the offensive material within 14 days. The suggestion is so eminently sensible that my only surprise is that it is not already in the Bill. I ask my hon. Friends to support me. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note the strength of that support and acceded to my sensible amendment.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I recognise, and welcome, the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that local authorities should remove graffiti. I think that even he would argue that it would hardly be right to enter a new phase of conferring further statutory duties on local authorities, however admirable his amendment might be. Local authorities already have many statutory duties, and it is not part of our policy to create new ones, unless it is absolutely necessary. I do not see that the imposition of such a duty is a necessity. I hope that all local authorities, as a sensible part of good housing management policy, could be persuaded to take the kind of action that my hon. and learned Friend seeks. If such a duty were imposed, there must be some doubt whether it would be enforceable. I am not minded to ask the House to accept my hon. and learned Friend's amendment, but I understand why he proposed it.

Mr. Soley: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is right. It does not do the Government any credit to say that they are not prepared to impose these extra duties on local authorities. They spend so much time taking away duties and powers from local authorities that it is no wonder that racialist graffiti is left in decaying urban areas. The Government ramble on about law and order policies, but they cannot keep areas, especially inner-city areas, clean and decent places in which people can live and walk. The Government have no right to talk about law and order, even if one ignores the mess that they have made of it generally.
There is a strong case for imposing on local authorities a duty to clear up racialist graffiti, precisely because we know that it is given such a low priority by so many local authorities. The Government have said that part III is an important part of the Bill, and I agree. I have already commented on the Minister's abilities—he has been very good in this respect. The Government give part III a high priority but say that is does not matter if the offending words and phrases remain. Such words and phrases are sufficient reason to bring a person before a court and, in

certain circumstances, to send him to prison. The Government say that we need not do anything about it. That is virtually a contradiction.
Why do we take such action against the individuals who write that graffiti if we are not prepared to ensure that it is cleared up when the culprit cannot be found? Are we just to leave the graffiti there to be offensive? The Government have a double standard on law and order. They want all the good things. They go on about law and order being necessary, but take all the action that makes a breakdown in law and order highly likely. This is yet another example in which the Government make no effort to maintain standards in decaying and rundown areas where racialist graffiti is a major problem and in other areas where it offends the many people against whom it is directed. The hon. and learned Member for Burton was right to draw our attention to it.

Mr. Lawrence: Although I reject the intemperate accusations of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) against the Government's law and order policy, I am grateful to him for his support for my amendment. I am not pleased with my hon. Friend the Minister. He said how sympathetic he was, but talked of how impossible it was to do anything about the problem.
If the Home Office is not minded to put some pressure on a department somewhere to do something about the problem, nothing will be done. I should like to be able to say that the writing is on the wall if the writing is not taken off the wall by the Government. Some action is necessary. My hon. Friend's answer was not, with the greatest respect, convincing or satisfactory.
Of course I appreciate the difficulties involved in pressing the amendment, but I should like my hon. Friend to reconsider. I hope that the other place will see fit to put more pressure on the Government than I have managed to do, with the welcome assistance of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise to the House for missing out amendment No. 48. We shall take it now.

Mr. Clelland: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 11, line 31, leave out '3' and insert '20'.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) argued, strongly and with his usual eloquence, that three was far too small a figure to define an assembly for the purposes of the Bill. The Minister said that he agreed that the base should be shifted upwards. He said:
I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's arguments with care and I shall consult further on the matter. I accept that, if a number can be found that is sensible in terms both of policing and of definition for the kind of offences that we are discussing, that number should be in the clause. I have accepted the principle and indicated at least that my starter is for 10."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 13 March 1986; c. 789.]
As no Government amendment to increase the number has been tabled and as the Minister has said that he accepts the principle that the number should be increased, I am left with the assumption that he looks favourably on the


amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Therefore, I shall waste no more time but shall await the Minister's favourable response.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) has chosen his moment and his amendment well and has presented a good case for excluding small assemblies of fewer than 20 persons from the scope of the clause 14 provision. The case is of such quality that its author must be a great man. We discussed this matter at some length in Committee and I accepted then that there was a case in principle for excluding small assemblies. We consulted the police and they are content with a cut-off point of 20 and I am happy to say that the Government are prepared to accept the amendment and I advise the House so to do.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

PUBLISHING OR DISTRIBUTING

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 12, line 19, leave out
'It is a defence for the accused' and insert 'In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who did not intend to stir up racial hatred'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 18

POSSESSION OF RACIALLY INFLAMMATORY MATTER

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 12, leave out lines 26 to 35 and insert

'if—

(a) he intends racial hatred to be stirred up by the publication or distribution of the matter, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result of the publication or distribution of the matter;

and for this purpose regard shall be had to such publication or distribution as he has, or it may reasonably be inferred that he has, in view.'.

No. 59, in page 13, line 4, leave out
'It is a defence for the accused' and insert 'In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who did not intend to stir up racial hatred'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 19

WORDS OR GESTURES

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 13, line 8, leave out from 'uses' to 'words' in line 9.

No. 61, in page 13, line 10, leave out from 'if' to end of line 12 and insert '—

(a) he intends by the use of the words or gestures to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely, as a result of the use of the words or gestures, to be stirred up.'.

No. 62, in page 13, line 11, leave out 'Great Britain' and insert 'England and Wales'.

No. 63, in page 13, line 12, at end insert—
'(1A) An offence under this section may be committed in a private or public place, except that no offence is committed by the use of words or gestures by a person inside a dwelling which are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.'.

No. 64, in page 13, in line 13, after 'person', insert
'who does not intend to stir up racial hatred'.

No. 65, in page 13, line 15 at end insert—

'(2A) It is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his words or gestures would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.'.

No. 66, in clause 20, page 13, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'may' in line 20 and insert
'(1) No prosecution for an offence under this Part'.

No. 67, in page 13, line 22, at end insert—
'(2A) For the purposes of the rules in England and Wales against charging more than one offence in the same count or information, each of sections 17, 18 and 19 creates one offence.'.

No. 68, in page 13, line 23, leave out 'such an offence' and insert
'an offence under this Part'.

No. 69, in clause 21, page 13, line 30, leave out from 'of' to 'any' in line 31.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 24

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 74, in page 15, leave out line 1 and insert 'In this Part—'.

No. 75, in page 15, line 5, at end insert—
'"dwelling" means any structure or part of a structure occupied as a person's home or as other living accommodation (whether the occupation is separate or shared with others) but does not include any part not so occupied, and for this purpose "structure" includes a tent, caravan, vehicle, vessel or other temporary or moveable structure;'.

No. 76, in page 15, leave out line 6 and insert—
'"premises" includes any place and, in particular, includes—

(a) any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or hovercraft,
(b) any offshore installation, as defined in section 1(3)(b) of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, and
(c) any tent or moveable structure;'.

No. 77, in page 15, leave out lines 7 to 15.

No. 78, in page 15, line 18, at end insert—
'"racial hatred" means hatred against a racial group in Great Britain.'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 26

OFFENCES CONNECTED WITH FOOTBALL

Amendment made: No. 80, in page 16, line 16 [Clause 26], after '5', insert 'or Part III'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Clause 27

EFFECT OF ORDER

Mr. Giles Shaw: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), I beg to move amendment No. 81, in page 17, line 6, leave out from 'may' to end of line 8 and insert 'arrest him without warrant'.
May I suggest that with this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 82, in page 17, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
We are minded to accept the amendments. They have the effect of substituting a power of arrest for the power of expulsion presently in the Bill, which is exercisable when a constable reasonably suspects that a person is in breach of an exclusion order. Representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers pressed for a power of arrest when I saw them a month or so ago. I am willing to accept the amendments and commend them to the House. In most circumstances, the power of expulsion together with the power of arrest under the Police and


Criminal Evidence Act would suffice. Under section 25 of that Act the police can arrest a person who is in breach of an exclusion order if, for example, service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate, because the police have grounds to believe he may cause injury to others or damage to property after being expelled from the football ground, or because the name and address of the suspected offender is not known and cannot readily be ascertained.
These powers would suffice in most cases, but I accept that there may be cases in which an offender is apprehended at a match and the police have no grounds for believing he will cause injury or damage, but believe that he will attempt to re-enter the ground. That is the point I undertook to cover and which it is correct to present to the House in the form of an amendment. I hope the House will agree to accept it.

Mr. Hayes: May I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to the House for not being present when these important amendments were put to the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his swiftness of foot and for the co-operation of Opposition Members. My hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government have taken a sensible approach to the Bill. Clearly, the Government understand, in the way that we in Committee, in a sensible and amicable way, understood, that the most important point is that football must be a decent family game, and one in which we want to prevent the thuggery and the violence that takes place. We must give the police the proper powers to enforce the exclusion orders. I am most grateful to the Minister for adopting this sensible and reasonable approach.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend, because this will avoid obstreperous football fans who have been expelled making a fool of policemen who are trying to do their job properly. This is a good example of the Government listening to the views of the police service, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for accepting the amendment.

Mr. Kaufman: Brisk and bizarre proceedings have been known in the House of Commons before, but this beats a lot that I have seen in 16 years. For an hon. Member to fail to move an amendment, and for a Minister to accept it in the absence of that hon. Gentleman, is a new level in the responsiveness and accountability of Her Majesty's Administration to the House of Commons. I very much trust that it will set a precedent for the future, based on telepathy.
The Opposition will not oppose the amendment. After reasonably assiduous attendance in Committee, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has now managed to get a bit on to the statute book. Without in any way detracting from his moment of glory, I must tell him that I believe that the use of this power will be extremely rare, for the very reasons that we gave when we discussed the exclusion order procedure in Committee. In our view—and also in the view of the Police Federation—the exclusion order procedure will be difficult to assert. I do not believe that adding a power of arrest to something that is very difficult to enforce will make it any easier.
The Opposition have made it clear throughout that, despite our doubts about the efficacy of this procedure

—which doubts are shared by the police themselves—we hope that it works. We believe that stringent action to deal with hooliganism at football matches will, provided it works, can only be to good of the public order and the game itself. Now that those who are subject to exclusion orders—thanks to the responsiveness of the Government—include racists, we hope that they will be caught by this as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 82, in page 17, line 9, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Schedule 1

SPORTING EVENTS

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 22, line 29, at end insert—

'Private facilities for viewing events

5AA.—(1) In relation to a room in a designated sports ground—

(a) from which designated sporting events may be directly viewed, and
(b) to which the general public are not admitted,

sections 2(1)(a) and 3(1)(a) of this Act have effect with the substitution for the reference to the period of a designated sporting event of a reference to the restricted period defined below.

(2) Subject to any order under subsection (3) below, the restricted period of a designated sporting event for the purposes of this section is the period beginning 15 minutes before the start of the event or (if earlier) 15 minutes before the time at which it is advertised to start and ending 15 minutes after the end of the event, but—

(a) where an event advertised to start at a particular time on a particular day is postponed to a later day, the restricted period includes the period in the day on which it is advertised to take place beginning 15 minutes before and ending 15 minutes after that time, and
(b) where an event advertised to start at a particular time on a particular day does not take place, the period is the period referred to in paragraph (a) above.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide, in relation to all designated sporting events or in relation to such descriptions of event as are specified in the order—

(a) that the restricted period shall be such period, shorter than that mentioned in subsection (2) above, as may be specified in the order, or
(b) that there shall be no restricted period.

(4) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 88.

Mr. Shaw: We now come to a significant amendment, which has been pressed upon me by both sides of the House. It relates to the exemption included in the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act, which was passed last summer and applies to all parts of grounds which have bars, with the exception of the sponsored boxes which were built facing the pitch. I am glad to say that in general—I hope that the House will concur—the police believe that the Act, as well as other things that have taken place since last season, is helping them to combat hooliganism.
During the proceedings on the Bill considerable concern was expressed about the effect of the Act on the revenue that clubs derived from the leasing of executive boxes. I therefore undertook to monitor the situation, and the Football League has supplied us with information that shows that clubs are projecting considerable losses. In


Committee I said that the Government would be working on an amendment to relax the controls without abandoning them altogether, and the result is before the House this evening.
The amendments establish a new regime for the sale and possession of alcohol in executive boxes and restaurants. The sale and possession of alcohol in such rooms will continue to be prohibited for a period lasting from 15 minutes before a match until 15 minutes after a match. Outside that dry period, box occupants will be able to possess alcohol, and it can be sold to them as long as a normal justice's licence has been obtained.
The amendments also make provision for the dry period to be reduced, or indeed removed altogether, by order. I should make it clear that we have an open mind on whether, and if so when, that power should be exercised, and we certainly do not intend that it should be exercised before the 1987–88 season, at the very earliest.
Under the arrangements, the role of the magistrate will be limited to the usual licensing role. We concluded that it would not be appropriate or sensible to attempt to devise a new form of procedure for boxes similar to the exemption order arrangements under the 1985 Act. Many boxes are paid for by companies, which take clients to matches and provide them with drinks at no charge. We could not easily extend the present exemption order scheme, which applies only to sale, to those cases. It would be equally difficult to graft on to the 1985 Act a new exemption order scheme which applied to possession as well as to sale. Accordingly, the amendments are formulated on a different basis, with a central dry period, but with a substantial reduction in the period of control.
I know that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was especially concerned about the equity of the whole operation of the 1985 Act, and about the equity to be included in any amendments that we brought forward. I believe that we have incorporated as much equity as is reasonably possible in the circumstances, without undermining the controls generally. Clearly, during the period when clubs are not enabled to serve or to sell alcohol in boxes they will be in the same position as people on the terraces and in the stands, who will not be able to possess alcohol in any place from which the pitch may be viewed direct. They can go to behind the stands areas to buy a drink if an exemption order for sale has been granted by a local magistrate.
We have initially set the dry period to cover the period of the match and 15 minutes on either side and I would judge that that 15 minutes on either side is the time when the vast majority of spectators enter or leave matches and is accordingly the period when the need for equity is at its greatest.
In addition, the relaxation is framed in terms of rooms from which the pitch may be directly viewed and to which the general public are not admitted. The relaxation would therefore apply to any room (for example a supporters' club clubhouse) to which the general public are not admitted. There is nothing to prevent a club from developing such a facility and thereby taking advantage of the relaxation that we have in mind. In many ways we would welcome developments of membership card schemes in this way to provide facilities which are not for general public use but which are for club members only.
These proposals represent a significant degree of relaxation for the clubs, while keeping intact the general thrust of the 1985 Act. Under the present controls, alcohol

may neither be sold nor purchased in boxes for a period lasting from two hours before a match until one hour afterwards, a total period of four hours 40 minutes. Under these proposals this "dry period" will be reduced to two hours 10 minutes. Sponsors will be able to entertain clients for a meal with a drink before the match, and if developments in the game are encouraging there is provision for further relaxation in subsequent seasons.
I conclude by saying that in dealing with the issues of football hooliganism and the management of clubs we have provided arrangements for an exclusion order scheme and for an arrest power to go with that. We have provided proposals for containment of the sale of alcohol, yet with a relaxation, significantly, for the provision of alcohol in sponsored boxes.
I wish that clubs would give more commitment to installing membership schemes in order to control those whom they wish to attend their games, and in that way do more to fulfil their side of the bargain, because I believe that if the House accepts these amendments we shall be delivering our side of it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am sorry that the Government felt compelled to make these further concessions to those who want to earn the money for football from booze. It is a pity that our national game is so unimaginative in its approach to fund raising that it has to persuade the House that football will not be able to survive unless drinking in directors' boxes is allowed. That is a shameful admission.
I have had some responsibility for sport. I have had the opportunity to see how other countries handle the financing of it, and most of the great European football clubs arrange their business rather better. They have multisport facilities. They have arrangements whereby they get income from many activities that attract more customers, including families. Regrettably, in Britain we appear to be accepting the view that unless the directors' guests can do more drinking in the boxes, football will collapse. I do not believe that.
It would have been far better to make football face up to its responsibilities, widen its market and use its facilities better. It is a national disgrace that we have come to the situation that, although Parliament has had to take action to prevent drink generating violence, we are now under pressure from the clubs who say that we must change what we did. I do not think that the initial Act—the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol, Etc.) Act—was any good, and I do not think that this Bill is any good. We have arrived at this pass. There is nothing to be done, but somebody should have the guts to stand up and say that football does itself no credit if it finances its future on booze.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I declare my interest in that I am chairman of the all-party football committee, and the House may know that, along with my colleagues, I have argued for this change. It is no secret that on the Second Reading of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol, Etc.) Act, I said that I felt that both the Government and my Front Bench had overreacted to the terrible tragedies at Brussels, Birmingham and Luton. The proposed amendment is a recognition by both the Government and the Opposition that my colleagues and I had a rather more valid line of argument than they thought.
This is not time for self-congratulation. The feeling is probably best summed up by Luke, chapter 15:


joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentence.
In this case we have two, in the shapes of the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I congratulate them because, following the promise that we obtained from the Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill—that he would monitor the effects of the Bill on football clubs—both the Minister and my right hon. Friend took that promise seriously. They both visited football clubs, looked closely at the problems, and monitored the Football League, and the reactions of the all-party football committee. As a result, we have today's amendment.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), because he misunderstood the Act on Second Reading last year, and he still misunderstands it. He spoke about the guests in directors' boxes, but that has always gone on because the boxes do not overlook the pitch. We are not talking about them, although the hon. Gentleman keeps getting this mixed up. I agree with him in part about continental clubs, but they have always had such a facility, for which we have argued, and which is returning through the amendment. His contribution was neither weighty nor relevant.
There is no doubt—it has been recognised by the Government and by Opposition spokesmen—that clubs such as Manchester United, Spurs, Leicester City and many others would have been hit drastically next season were it not for this proposal. There were signs of that this season. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton asked for equity. Unfortunately, the flow of money from executive box holders, which would enable clubs to do all the things that the Prime Minister and the Minister of State wanted, including improving safety standards, was drying up fast. But at the same time, the person who had his drink out of sight of the pitch could still enjoy that facility. The amendment would make the position more equitable for executive box holders, many of whom may not support the Labour party. But as an egalitarian, I believe that they should be given a fair chance if they are genuine football supporters.
12 midnight
I welcome the proposal, as does the Football League. Indeed, Jack Dunnett told me yesterday that he was grateful for small mercies. He hopes that the Minister will widen the concessions, if not next season, the season after. I hope that the Minister will give a guarantee that he will not stop the monitoring exercise. I hope that the Government will continue to examine the effects of the legislation, even as amended, to ensure that football can prosper and do all the things that we wish our national game to do. We must rid ourselves of the hooligan element that has attached itself to our national game. They are not genuine football supporters. I have not argued against membership cards. There is room for an experiment in that area. The committee which examined the matter argued that, given modern technology, football clubs should try to move towards the Government's position and at least conduct an experiment with the object of introducing a membership card system that would go some way to alleviating many of the problems.
I congratulate the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton on accepting the main thrust of our arguments. They will also wish to thank Paul

Bobroff of Tottenham Hotspur, Marting Edwards of Manchester United, Jack Dunnett and many others who participated in the monitoring exercise and turned this proposal into a reality. The Minister would be well advised to continue the monitoring exercise, because it has been a true exercise in democracy. The football clubs must also accept that many hon. Members genuinely feel for the game and wish to assist them to get rid of the problems which neither they nor we want. I welcome this modest move in the direction for which we argued last year.

Mr. Michael Carttiss: I agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and disagree almost totally with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). Although I had not intended to speak in the debate, in welcoming the Government amendment I declare my interest as a long-standing supporter of Norwich City football club. I recognise that my hon. Friend comes from a county whose football team is not so good on the field, although its supporters' standard of behaviour is equal to that in Norwich. I invite him to visit Norwich City football club next season to see the new stand, erected after the old one was burnt down because of an electrical fault. There he will see the membership card scheme applied to about 2,000 occupants of the stand. Norwich City has made the positive initiatives for which my hon. Friend the Minister of State called. I welcome what the Government have said tonight in respect of this. There is still room for further movement in the direction of relaxation.
I reject the notion that football is any more dependent on booze than the Barbican theatre, the Royal Opera House, the ballet or any other place where people drink at very high prices, which all helps the profits of those theatres and enables the pastimes to be enjoyed at perhaps a slightly lower cost. There is nothing wrong with drink. It is like everything else—it needs to be done in moderation. The move that the Government have made to relax the controls will be welcomed, will result in a positive approach and, of course, has nothing to do with the provision of hospitality by directors, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde underlined. It has to do with companies ploughing back into sport their funds from their other activities, entertaining their customers, the people with whom they deal throughout the year, and at the same time helping to bring football grounds generally into the 21st century, which many of our Continental neighbours have already done.
I welcome the amendment. I hope that we shall see an even further relaxation in the season after next, in the light of the experience of the coming season, which I am sure will show football clubs to be responsible in dealing with what I acknowledge to be a complex matter when one talks about equity.

Mr. Hawksley: I welcome the amendment. It is a response to the long debate in Committee in which I put down an amendment which would have allowed local magistrates to decide what restrictions, if any, they wished to put on such boxes. I still cannot understand why the Minister cannot go the whole way in agreeing to that being enforced because, under this proposal, he is agreeing to a certain relaxation while keeping to himself the possibility of further relaxation later. I hope that he will use that power, because when we debated this we argued that no


hooliganism that we had ever heard of had started in or been caused by actions in the boxes. I hope that the Minister will respond to local needs. That is why I argued in Committee that it should be the magistrates, who knew the area, who should decide. I hope that when the Minister replies he will agree to listen to representations made by hon. Members representing areas, when they ask him to relax the order, as this amendment allows him to do.
Providing the Minister gives the House an assurance that he is prepared to consider such representations, I am very pleased to support the amendment, which goes a long way to meeting the needs expressed to us by the Football League, which envisaged the loss of a large amount of income. We are right to try to help it on this occasion.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Many years ago there was a film in which Charlie Drake took the part of the triangle player in an orchestra, every other member of which he also played. The whole film consisted of his being almost ready to strike the note on the triangle and, in the end, failing to do so at the appropriate time. I wondered whether it would fall to my lot to do that, having sat patiently not just in Committee but also through the whole of today's debate; but at last we arrive at my role in this process.
I am now a revisionist on the matter of alcohol at football grounds. The Minister has heard me express the view in the past that I did not agree with controls on the introduction of alcohol, because I did not think that they would prove effective. Having taken soundings among those who run football grounds and the police, who have had 12 months' experience of controlling alcohol, I must confess that I have been converted to the view that control has a beneficial effect. There is no doubt that what the police are telling us, not just in my area but up and down the country, is that the crowds have been easier to control. There was a sense of revulsion following the disgraceful and tragic events of 12 months ago. Control over the sale of alcohol at football grounds means that spectators have been more amenable and that the police have been able to persuade them to behave in a manner that is in the interests of all those who are present at football matches.
The experiment has helped to reduce hooliganism at football grounds. The clubs have put forward very powerful, although self-interested, arguments about the way in which the controls bite. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and the all-party football committee that pressure has been brought to bear upon the Minister and his colleagues to consider a relaxation of the rules.
During the debate in Committee it was accepted by most of those concerned that the Minister faced a most difficult job in trying to recognise the real needs of football clubs which, despite the comments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), have suffered financial penalties. I sympathise with his argument that football clubs should not have to depend upon alcohol as a source of club funds. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate part of the social scene in this country.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Why not allow them to sell cocaine?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman seriously advocates the provision of cocaine by football clubs.
Inability to sell alcohol in the executive boxes has cost the clubs dearly, not because of the loss of sales but because of the potential loss of users of those boxes. The Minister has gone some way towards meeting the needs of the clubs and has also recognised the need for equity within football grounds. In Committee the Opposition said that it is necessary to recognise that football, as a game, is operated in the interests not just of those who sit in the executive boxes but of all those who go to football matches.
The amendments go a considerable way towards alleviating the difficulties faced by clubs. However, football clubs and their supporters are still on probation. It is possible that there will be further relaxations if their good record continues during the next and following seasons. Therefore the Opposition give a guarded welcome to the amendments. They try to strike a balance between the conflicting needs of football supporters, whether they sit inside or outside the executive boxes, the more general needs of the public in and around football grounds, and the needs of the football clubs.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 88, in page 23, line 33 at end insert—
'4A. In sections 2 and 3, after subsection (1) insert—
(1A) Subsection (1)(a) above has effect subject to section 5AA(1) of this Act.".'.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Schedule 2

OTHER AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 90, in page 29, line 7 leave out from 'up' to end of line 11 and insert
'racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up as a result of the inclusion of the programme in the cable programme service.'.

No. 91, in page 29, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert—

'(3) For subsections (3) to (5) substitute—
(3) None of those persons commits an offence if he did not intend to stir up racial hatred and did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the offending words were threatening, abusive or insulting.—[Mr. Maude.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Giles Shaw.]

Mr. Kaufman: We have now arrived at the final stage of the Bill, after long consideration. We have had a Second Reading and a Standing Committee stage which lasted 34 sittings and about 80 hours, and we have had another long day today.
I should like to thank my hon. Friends who have participated in the work of the Standing Committee and who made a significant contribution to our debates. I should also like to thank my hon. Friends who did not take part in those debates but who participated on Second Reading and on Report. It would not be proper for me to allow this final stage to be completed without thanking the Minister of State for the way in which he has responded to our arguments.
There was a time early on when, for reasons of propriety, we regretted the absence of the Home Secretary. I do not criticise his absence from this debate, as I know the reasons for it. It has to be said that he did not take the role in earlier stages of such a major Bill that we would have expected. We did not miss the Home Secretary,


however, because the Minister responded, although not always favourably, to our amendments after proper consideration.
There is no doubt that the Bill is different in substantial respects from the one which the Opposition opposed on Second Reading. That is not to say for a moment that the Bill is to our liking in several parts. We still dislike some of part I, and especially some of part II, considerably. I give notice to the Minister and his officials that an incoming Labour Government after the general election will repeal most of the cotentious aspects of part II and consider part I.
I should like to itemise those parts of the Bill which we still strongly dislike. Despite an improvement that was made today, we still believe that the offence of disorderly conduct in part I is too vague and could turn louts and larkers unnecessarily into criminals. We do not believe that it is satisfactory that the use of words alone, even words on a badge, can generate an offence under what will be section 4, with the possibility of six months in prison.
Despite the considerable changes that we have achieved in part II, the police are being given new and unprecedented powers over marches and open-air meetings. They will be a burden to the police when dealing with the real law and order problems of today. The powers are based on vague and sweeping criteria, especially the criterion of serious disruption to the life of the community, to which we have taken exception throughout.
There is no recognition in the Bill of the right to demonstrate peacefully. There is no adequate remedy for citizens against mistaken or perverse use of the powers that part II confers on the police. There is still a threat to criminalise demonstrators for failure to comply with the directions of the police.
In part III, we regret that the Attorney-General's consent for prosecution in race hatred matters is still necessary. We believe that it will weaken the force of the new protections against racial hatred which have been written into the Bill.
As I said during the debate, we still regard part IV as irrelevant in many ways. We still believe that the exclusion orders, although we hope that they will work, are impractical. The Government have failed to demonstrate how the exclusion orders can work or to satisfy the doubts of the police. We still believe that it would have been a good idea to seek to take action over hooligans who go to matches overseas; therefore, we still have the most serious objections to every single part of the Bill.
I repeat what I have said throughout, on Second Reading and in Committee, that the Bill brings a new risk of conflict between the police and the community, puts new burdens on the police and is irrelevant to the crime wave we are suffering—3,600,000 serious offences last year and only about 1,000 public order offences. To have spent three months of parliamentary time on a Bill which touches only the edges of the real and frightening law and order problem in this country seems to be a misuse of the time of the House of Commons.
However, it has to be said that, after these debates, we have achieved considerable and important changes in the Bill. On the public order offences in part I, we have ensured that the use of words alone will not constitute a major offence or riot, violent disorder or affray. The

offence of threatening or provoking violence has been made tigher and related more closely to the presence of an intended victim or target. The Government have agreed to reconsider removing the life sentence as a penalty for the technical offence of riot and I hope, after the events of next month, they will move towards that in an amendment in the House of Lords.
The part of the Bill dealing with racial hatred has always been welcomed by the Opposition. That part of the Bill is now stronger that it was before and in many respects it will provide some of the strongest statutory provisions ever against the promotion of racial hatred. The amendment we proposed and which the Government accepted, whereby for the first time the police are to be given a power of immediate arrest for offences involving racial hatred, will have a real affect on these matters.
We are pleased that the Government have accepted, within the exclusion order procedure, that the courts will be given power to ban people who commit offences involving racial hatred from attending football matches. I have discussed with the football authorities and with a number of football clubs the ugly presence and menace of racial louts at football matches. It is agreed on all sides that they make a sinister and ugly contribution to hooliganism at football matches. It is satisfactory that, as a result of amendments we tabled and which the Government have accepted, for the first time the law will address itself specifically to the problem of racist troublemakers who attach themselves to sporting events and spoil and make horrible those occasions.
We are pleased that the Government have accepted our proposition that the stirring up of racial hatred should be a criminal offence, not only in public places but in private places, other than domestic dwellings. We are pleased that we have secured a commitment from the Government to consider urgently the need for new legislation to deal with racist videos; we are also pleased to have secured a commitment from them to hold discussions with us on the case for new legislation to deal with offences of racial harassment. Indeed, only this evening, I received from the Home Secretary a letter inviting Her Majesty's Opposition to take part in discussions with him on the possibility of us agreeing in further legislation to consider an offence of racial harassment.
There was a great deal of misgiving, after the Bill appeared—and indeed, to be fair, before it appeared—about what would happen under clause 5 as it was originally drafted. We criticised it strongly on Second Reading. The Home Secretary at that time invited us to debate in Committee amendments to the Bill that would seek to negate the possibility of the new offence of disorderly conduct being turned into a resuscitated sus law. The Government acknowledged right away, when we began debating the matters in Committee, that they did not want a resuscitated sus law, and they moved considerably along the road that we asked them to travel along, when they accepted the necessity of a victim for that offence. We believe that the acceptance of a victim assists in transforming the offence from an almost certain resuscitation of the sus law into more of the sort of offence that many of our constituents wish to see when they are harrassed on their estates and in the areas in which they live.
Although, as I have made clear, we still do not regard the new formulation as entirely satisfactory, and although we believe that there are dangers in it, we also believe that,


following the case that we made in Committee, the new clause will be less unsatisfactory and may even be positively of value because a real victim will have to be present, the victim must be one likely to have suffered alarm, distress or harassment from the offenders' words or conduct, and a person will not be guilty if he had no reason to believe that he was being watched or heard by a likely victim.
When we saw the new clause, we were still worried that it would be usable as a new sus law, and would therefore not only mean harassing youth and possibly particularly black youth, but would bring the police into conflict with the community. We believe that the changes that have been made mean that the new offence is much less likely to be brought into use at pickets or demonstrations. The Government responded to the new amendment that we moved this evening, saying that the Minister will issue guidance to the police on the way in which the offence is enforced, and will write to me and publish that letter so that we can monitor the proper use of the offence and ensure that it is not misused to harass boisterous youth or others whose behaviour should not be turned into criminal offences.
Of course, the heart of our opposition to the Bill has been that we were extremely concerned, and remain concerned, at the controls that it contains on marches and demonstrations. Here again, we may say that we have achieved major changes, possibly the most important changes in the Bill. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), which the Minister accepted, is perhaps the single most important amendment that has been incorporated in the Bill. It increases the definition of an assembly from three to 20. The idea of an assembly of three not only meant that the police could disperse any group of people numbering more than two on the grounds that they could be a disruptive or disorderly assembly, but that peaceful small-scale picketing, which was not even potentially unlawful under the Employment Act 1980 and which was within the TUC codes of picketing, could have been turned into a criminal offence.
We were extremely worried about the infringement of the rights to assemble and to picket caused by this narrow definition, and we are gratified that the increase to 20 removes a great many misgivings. Nevertheless, we remain wholly opposed to the provision itself, and a Labour Government will repeal the whole provision relating to the control of and conditions on assemblies.
Despite that opposition we believe that the change from three to 20 will be of value, and that the Government's agreement to issue a circular reminding the police in considering the use of their powers over assemblies and processions of peoples' rights to assemble and to demonstrate peacefully is an important innovation. It is the Government's public acknowledgement of the right to assemble and picket. The circular will be published, and will be an important document, although we still wish that it was a statutory provision. Nevertheless, we welcome it as likely to have an important influence on the working of the provision.
We are also pleased that, as a result of our proposals, the six days' notice to the police of any planned procession will not now be required, if it is not reasonably practicable to give advance notice. We are pleased that a procession is more tightly defined, although we are not wholly satisfied with the definition. We are pleased that notice of

a procession will be accepted by post, and need not require a personal application, as was originally provided in the Bill.
We are glad that the Government have acknowledged and accepted amendments to the effect that, regarding assemblies and marches, arrests may by made only be a constable in uniform. The activity of police who did not appear to be police during the miners' strike and some of the events that have taken place at Wapping in recent weeks have caused grave disquiet. This new provision will be an improvement, and will ensure that only acknowledged police are active.
We are glad that directions regarding conditions on planned assemblies or processions must be given in writing, rather than verbally, by a chief constable or a metropolitan commissioner. We are pleased that the application by the police for banning a procession must now be based on reasonable belief of disorder, rather than merely belief. That change will make it easier to apply for a judicial review of a ban.
Some of those are small mercies and some are large changes. They do not make the Bill palatable to us in many of its provisions. They do not reduce our utter determination to rid the statute book of all its parts which are objectionable to civil liberties.
We are able to say, however, that during the months which we have spent considering the Bill, the parliamentary Labour party has been active and vigilant on behalf of the civil liberties of our people. In the House, we are massively out-numbered in voting terms by the Government, but we have been able to make changes which all who care about civil liberties will welcome as progress, although they will not be fully satisfied until we have a Labour Government who reassert in statutory form the right to freedom of expression, assembly and procession of our people.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke at length, and I think that on no fewer than 25 occasions he said that he was pleased, which is commendable. I, too, believe that the Bill is a civil liberties measure, for the most important civil liberty of all is the liberty of our people to live in peace; not to be intimidated, not to have their lives disrupted, not to be made the victims of violent men who go rampaging round the country, not to be made the victims of rat packs on our great housing estates, and not to be intimidated, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, by racist gangs. The Bill is indeed a civil liberties measure, in the sense that it provides proper protection for individuals against collective violence.
I join the right hon. Member in saying that I think that the clause providing exclusion from football clubs is something of an irrelevance. I am with him in welcoming what the Government have been able to do in the interests of racial equality. I hope that it will never be said of the Conservative Government, or the Conservative party, that we have done anything other than massively assist the cause of racial equality. It is much to the credit of the Government that that has been done.
The main drive of the Bill—this follows from the White Paper and the studies of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—has been to move to the rescue of those who live on our great housing estates and who have been grossly abused. I believe that the Bill will give material


assistance to the police in helping the poor, the elderly, the lonely, those who are set upon and those who are assaulted and vandalised. It is to the Government's credit that by the Bill they have gone to the assistance of those people.
The House has worked hard on the Bill, and the members of the Committee achieved considerable harmony. At the end of the day, I believe that they will wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department. I have had the doubtful pleasure of serving on about 20 Committees which have considered Bills of various sorts, including many which have been directed to the police and public order. I know of no Minister who has brought to a Committee the degree of patience, good humour, sweet temper and constructiveness that has been demonstrated by my hon. Friend. Whenever he undertook to assist the Committee, he did so. He has not delivered in every respect in a manner that has been wholly satisfactory to me, but he has won the great admiration of those who were members of the Committee, both Government and Opposition Members.
When the House has released the Bill and it has passed through another place, it will fall to the police service to implement it. I hope that no hon. Member who has played his part in getting the Bill through the House will wash his hands, walk away from the problem, and return to the ordinary parliamentary dialectic of bashing the police whenever possible. We lay heavy burdens upon the police. We have asked them to undertake an immensely complicated task and we have not helped them by adding to their paperwork. Nevertheless, I am sure that the police service, as it always does, will do its utmost to make the Bill work. I hope that it will have the practical support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in seeking to do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We should remember why the Bill is before us and why we have considered it in preceding months. It was born out of industrial chaos caused by the Government. The Government caused chaos by putting millions of people out of work.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Member that on Third Reading the House considers what is in the Bill. The House does not have as wide a debate as is conventional on Second Reading.

Mr. Skinner: I shall explain why it is important to oppose the Bill.
The Government chose deliberately to cause chaos. As a result, they had to introduce a Bill to try to remedy that chaos. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on some of the changes that have been made, minor though they were. It is important to remember that the Bill would not have been drafted had it not been for certain incidents, such as the miners' strike and other industrial disputes, which arose because of Government policy. The Bill would not have been introduced had there not been massive cuts in public expenditure. There has been a series of attacks on local government expenditure. Inner city areas have been allowed to run down. There has been a failure to build houses and bungalows for the people who need them.
The Government caused chaos in both industrial and economic terms. As a result, they came along with another piece of the jigsaw—in the form of this legislation—to try to control law and order. For those reasons, it is important that the Labour party is seen to be opposing the measure to the bitter end. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said that parts of the legislation will be repealed by a future Labour Government, because the legislation attacks civil liberties.
In 1979 the Government claimed that they would set the people free. They talked about law and order and said that they would impose a short, sharp shock on those who were supposed to be upsetting society at that time. After seven years, the Government have not set the people free. After all the chaos caused by the Tory Government, we find that today, of all days, on Third Reading, the Government have set the prisoners free. We shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for his extremely courteous remarks at the outset of his speech. I recognise, as he does, that during the many sittings of the Committee we endeavoured to achieve major changes in the Bill for the betterment of public order. I thank all my colleagues who served on the Committee and helped to make the Bill possible.
I refer also to the substantial effort by my staff in the Home Office in helping members of the Committee and helping to maintain an orderly flow of information on this major undertaking. I refer to the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter). His benign chairmanship ensured that we did not descend into the acrimony that a topic of this order could easily attract. A number of changes have been made to the legislation. The right hon. Member for Gorton catalogued them for the House.
This is a major Bill about public order. Its genesis was not the miners' strike, despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to make it appear so. Its genesis was a major review of the law on public order based on the 1936 Act undertaken by the Law Commission. It will now stand as a major modernisation and codification of public order law, together with the additional powers it conveys on certain aspects on which the Committee spent much time.
The Bill's major contribution is in the context of public order law. I dismiss the views of those who seek to belittle the importance of the measure or seek to deny the importance of its roots and antecedents.
We have worked together in a genuinely constructive spirit in providing a parliamentary process. I suspect that the way in which the Bill has emerged is a credit to that process. Of course there have been profound differences of opinion, and those differences remain, but we respect the views of those whose ideas differ from the Government's. Equally, we are determined to look after the community we serve. It deserves and demands an effective and measured response from the Government to the growth of violence and disorder in society. That is what the Bill sets out to do.
We have applied a consistent test to our proposals to give the police only such powers as are necessary and effective in helping them to avert disorder and to protect the rights of the citizen. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stressed that it was all too easy to talk of worries in isolation and in absolute terms.


The Government staunchly defend and protect the rights of free speech, assembly and demonstration. They are all of fundamental importance in a democratic society. As a member of a Government who have their roots deep in the traditions of our nation and the defence of individual liberty, I take ill lectures from any quarter about the importance of sustaining and nurturing the British people's historic freedoms.
Where we differ from the Opposition in presentaton and perhaps in substance is that we insist on keeping firmly in view the fact that these rights must always be balanced against the rights of others to live their lives peacefully, free from intimidation and violence and free from deliberate disruption by those who want to force their views upon them.
We recognise, therefore, only an equality of rights. We reject the notion that, because a person forms part of an organised group—whether a picket, demonstration or protest march—it confers special privileges upon him. It would be wrong for the law to give such a person greater protection than the individual who does not want to picket, demonstrate or do any such thing.
It is not the Bill that weakens the responsible and peaceful exercise of democratic freedoms—on the contrary, it strengthens them. Rather it is those who misuse and twist such rights and their apologists who hide tyranny behind a mask acclaiming liberty who are the enemies of our traditional freedoms.
In short, we like to stress that rights carry responsibilities and that the right to demonstrate cannot be used as an excuse to deprive the rest of us of the right to live our lives in peace. A prerequisite for the exercise of rights is the existence of order. Public order is the most fundamental common good and, in helping to prevent disorder and thereby to provide greater protection for the citizen, the Bill is a timely and important piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be read now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 14.

Division No. 166]
[12.50 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Eric


Amess, David
Franks, Cecil


Ancram, Michael
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Best, Keith
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bright, Graham
Gow, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Gregory, Conal


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Burt, Alistair
Ground, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cash, William
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, John
Hawksley, Warren


Couchman, James
Hayes, J.


Dorrell, Stephen
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hickmet, Richard


Durant, Tony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Forman, Nigel
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)





Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Robert
Powley, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raffan, Keith


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Knowles, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Lyell, Nicholas
Squire, Robin


Maclean, David John
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Major, John
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Antony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Mather, Carol
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maude, Hon Francis
Viggers, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, David


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mellor, David
Waller, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Watts, John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Whitney, Raymond


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wood, Timothy


Newton, Tony



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes


Norris, Steven
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Gerald Malone




NOES


Barron, Kevin
Parry, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
Pendry, Tom


Clay, Robert
Pike, Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)



Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Madden, Max
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Michie, William
Mr. Dave Nellist.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That, during the proceedings on the matter of the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 67 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the second sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That Mr. David Clelland be added to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

CONSOLIDATION &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That Mr. Tony Blair be discharged from the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &amp;c., Bills and Mr. Nick Raynsford be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Rotherham Health Authority (Chairman)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Kevin Barron: I shall not detain the House for too long in discussing the position of the Rotherham health authority. The authority is in perhaps a unique position in Britain in that it does not at present have a chairman.
Hon. Members will know that the Government introduced new faces into the National Health Service looking for what could be described as the "myth of the market". The Government are trying to create a market, but it is a myth to think that that will be beneficial to the National Health Service.
The structure of management in the National Health Service has been altered, and hon. Members will recall that that was started by the Griffiths report. At the same time, the Government decided to replace some chairmen of district health authorities. In Rotherham, they decided not to re-appoint Mr. Vernon Thornes who for a long time had been chairman of Rotherham health authority. The decision not to re-appoint Mr. Thornes caused anger and shock in the area. It angered me when I heard about it.
Vernon Thornes wrote to me and to two other hon. Members in June 1985 a confidential letter in which he said he had heard about some intrigue over the appointment of chairmen of district health authorities. He said why he believed that Rotherham was a target, and that that might mean that the chairman would be replaced. I discussed the matter with a Minister, but he did not agree with my analysis of the non-appointment, or sacking, of Vernon Thornes.
One of the prime motivations behind the non-appointment of Mr. Thornes is the stand taken by Rotherham health authority against privatisation. The authority has issued tenders and has gone along with Ministers, but it has said on all tenders that the people tendering must fulfil obligations on the protection of earnings of people who work for them. Those obligations are on the hourly rate, the sick payment rates and holiday benefits.
The Minister knows that his Department has not looked favourably on any health authority that has taken such a stand. For a long time, the Department through the regional office has advised the health authority to withdraw the clause about working conditions on contracts going out to tender. The Department has told the authority to play the game and to stop telling people that they must pay certain wage rates and offer certain protections to people who work for them.
Rotherham health authority took advice on the matter and found that the requests from the Government, made through the regional office, were not legally binding. The authority's advisers said there was nothing illegal in what the authority was doing. Perhaps the Government thought it was immoral to have such clauses in the tender forms. Wage rates are sometimes less than £2 per hour, and there is nothing immoral in the authority trying to protect people.
Mr. Thornes appears to have been victimised because of the stand taken by Rotherham health authority on

privatisation. If that is the case, it is unfair because, like any good chairman, he was merely carrying out the wishes of the representatives on the health authority. He has an outstanding record in Rotherham in the National Health Service. One of the ironies of the case is that in a letter that he received from the chairman of Trent health authority on 18 March this year, shortly after that chairman had told Vernon Thornes that he would not be re-appointed, he was assured of:
our sincere gratitude for all you have done for the Health Service for the last twenty-two years. Your contribution to the development and organisation of Health Services in Rotherham has been exceptional. I can say quite unreservedly that largely due to your decisive leadership, great skill and extensive personal involvement you have been able to carefully and effectively steer the District through two major reorganisations. I know also that your personal initiative and sustained efforts have played a significant part in the development of the District General Hospital.
That is a glowing tribute and one that most of those who have come in contact with Mr. Thornes would say was well deserved. It seems to many people that what has happened to him recently under the directorship of the Secretary of State has been a shabby farewell. The vast majority of the people in the Rotherham area feel that Vernon Thornes should not have been treated in this way.
The Minister received a letter dated 13 March 1986, from the Rotherham health authority, signed by Mr. Terry Sharman, who is the vice-chairman of the health authority, and the mayor of the Rotherham borough council. In the letter, which was drawn up after the meeting of the Rotherham health authority, on that day, the council said, for three reasons, that it wanted Vernon Thornes reappointed for the next two years, until someone could be trained into the position of chairman of the health authority. The reasons were:
Vernon Thornes has been an outstanding Chairman and has acquired considerable experience of the health care needs of the Rotherham people over the last thirteen years.
2. He has the total confidence of the professions within the health service in Rotherham and of the Rotherham community.
3. The Authority has, at the moment, a number of projects that have not yet been brought to fruition that need Mr. Thornes' personal guidance in seeing their successful completion; furthermore, we feel, most strongly, that Mr. Thornes is given an opportunity to see these projects through.
It is right that that should happen. Mr. Thornes has indeed seen the health authority through two major reorganisations, and the latest is not yet complete.
The council said that it would like to bring a delegation to see the Minister if it would do any good, to bring further pressure to reinstate Vernon Thornes. I understand that the Secretary of State is about to appoint a local business man to the chair of the area health authority, and if my information is correct, the business man has no dealings with the NHS, and certainly none with the Rotherham health authority. In those circumstances, it would be better all round that Mr. Thornes should be appointed for a further two years, so that, on his retirement, somebody with experience of the NHS in Rotherham can take over.
I have had conversations with the Minister and the chairman of the Trent regional health authority, both of whom gave different reasons why Vernon Thornes was not reappointed. I still believe that I have been given no good reason why he should be replaced in this way. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to reconsider his position, and reappoint Vernon Thornes. As everyone in the Rotherham area has always said, he has done first-class work for a long time. He has served the NHS 22 years in south


Yorkshire, and his reappointment would be the best thing for the Rotherham district health authority, and for all concerned in the area. Of course, in two years' time he will be replaced because Vernon has already said that he wishes to retire after 24 years caring for people in the NHS in our area.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) for giving the House the opportunity to consider this matter—because it caused much anxiety in the Rotherham health authority area—and for the opportunity to put the facts on the record. May I make some general points before dealing with the specific issues relating to Mr. Thornes.
When talking about the Government's approach to the National Health Service, the hon. Gentleman used the words, "the myth of the market". We are trying to ensure that the huge public resources which are devoted to the Health Service—resources which have been increased by 24 per cent. in real terms since the Government came to office in 1979—are used most effectively. Therefore, we must find every way to ensure that the resources are used to best effect. That is not the myth of the market; it is sheer common sense, and anyone who knows what is happening in the Health Service will accept that that must be the way forward.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the altered structure of management. He is right to do so, because our new approach of focusing responsibility exactly where it should be centred is producing good results in the cost improvement programmes and, therefore, the release of additional resources which can be used for health care and the continuing improvement of the Health Service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts what is happening.
The appointment of health authority chairmen is an extremely important and difficult exercise, as any issue of this sensitivity must be. District health authorities are an important undertaking. Typically, a district health authority will have a budget of about £50 million and a work force of about 5,000. The provision of the necessary leadership and direction to an undertaking of that size is a considerable task. In making the appointments, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must seek candidates of the highest calibre. Not least in the considerations that must weigh with him is the fact that the district health authority is, in many respects, the local face of the NHS, and its members will be drawn from the locality that it serves. This provides the means for local views on the quality and organisation of services to be made known.
The chairman must be sensitive and responsive to those important matters, as well as having the experience and ability to enable him or her to direct the affairs of an organisation that touches the lives of most people within its boundaries and that is often the largest employer in the district.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the exercise to find the chairmen for most of the 191 district health authorities was launched by an announcement in the House on 18 April last year by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who is now the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction. The results

were made known on 17 March this year when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced the names of about 170 chairmen appointed to those important posts.
In launching the exercise in selection, my predecessor invited hon. Members to express any views on existing chairmen and to submit nominations to us by 3 June 1985.
When we undertook that consultation exercise, we took advice from a number of sectors but, within the National Health Service, the advice of regional chairmen was particularly relevant and valuable. We sought to take account of the advice and views of those hon. Members who responded, and consulted further with them, where necessary, throughout the year-long exercise. There were inevitably some areas where very finely balanced decisions had to be made, and either my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health or in some cases, the regional chairmen on our behalf, approached individual hon. Members to clarify or discuss their views. It is true to say that every effort was made to involve hon. Members in this decision-making process. At the same time, however, it must be made quite clear that these appointments are made at the sole discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that there was no question of clearing these appointments with hon. Members or, for that matter, with anyone else.
Having said that, I want to stress that in the case not only of Mr. Thornes but of very many others the question of non-reappointment was in no sense a condemnation or an expression of loss of confidence in a particular individual. One of the factors was inevitably the question of age. The average age of the new chairmen appointed in this round is something of the order of 54 years, which compares favourably with the average of 62 of the retiring chairmen.
I would like to reiterate what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health and also by the chairman of the Trent regional health authority, that Mr. Thornes has given exceptional service to the National Health Service. We pay a great tribute to his dedicated service in the Rother Valley district for no less than 22 years. Rather than this being seen as an attack on Mr. Thornes or an attempt to embarrass him, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and everyone else will accept that this was a job well and truly done, and that it was perfectly reasonable, after 22 years, that some new blood here, as in many other districts, should be sought.
It is always a question in such cases of keeping a balance between the need for stability and continuity and the need to introduce new blood, and to have fresh insights and ideas and continuity in the longer term. For those reasons, something like one third of the appointments that we have made were new ones. That was also the case in Rother Valley.
As it happens, the decision left Rother Valley without a chairman, due to an unfortunate but unforeseen series of events. A letter of invitation was sent out on 19 February to a new chairman who had, I understand, already indicated his willingness to serve, and a letter accepting the appointment was sent by the prospective chairman on 24 February, only to be followed two weeks later by a further letter, regretfully declining the appointment, due to the already heavy demands on his time. As I am sure the House will appreciate, this further letter coming, as it did, out of the blue meant that we had to reconsider an appointment that we had had every reason to believe had


been settled. There may have been other reasons of which we were not aware, but this was accepted by the new appointee.
I am glad, however, to be able to tell the House that, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware, a new appointment has now been made. Mr. A. G. Baker, a local man, has accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to serve as the new chairman of Rotherham health authority. We have every confidence in him and wish him well in this new and challenging post.
I repeat that there was no question of intrigue—one of the words used by the hon. Gentleman—or of any lack of confidence in Mr. Thornes, and there was certainly no question of what the hon. Gentleman referred to as privatisation but which more correctly should be called competitive tendering. The competitive tendering approach is precisely to ensure that Health Service resources are used in the most economic and effective way. We are looking for laundry, catering and cleaning service arrangements that will provide services of the right standard at the most economical cost. Most of the competitive tendering exercises result in the success of the in-house tender. There was no problem about competitive tendering.
The position adopted by the district health authority on the fair wages clause was contrary to the advice given by the regional health authority and the Department. By stipulating such matters, the district health authority may find that it results in an effect that is detrimental to the competitive tendering process in general. More specifically, it may deny the district health authority the opportunity to maximise savings in order to provide the maximum resources for health care. My understanding is that the former chairman, Mr. Thornes, advised members of the authority against retaining the fair wages clause. Ministers still hope that the district health authority will remove the clause.
I emphasise that Mr. Thornes has given very fine service for 22 years to the Health Service. There should be no interpretation of intrigue, or political manoeuvring, or lack of confidence. The decision was taken against the

background that I have described. The Government should always be sensitive and responsive to the legitimate interests of hon. Members—

Mr. Barron: The Minister asks me to believe that, but in reality it is very difficult to make, in relation to Mr. Thornes, the argument about age, since a person of 65 has been reappointed for a two-year period in the neighbouring Sheffield district health authority. I can only assume that the district health authority wants to introduce new blood. The Minister said that a Mr. Baker has been appointed as chairman of the Rotherham health authority. I hope that Mr. Baker will be as successful as Mr. Thornes. The appointment has been made, and we shall all work together with the new chairman of the Rotherham health authority to try to improve the services provided by the National Health Service in the Rotherham area.
The Minister referred to the fair wages clause that is included in the tenders submitted by the Rotherham health authority. What will happen if the new chairman is instructed, as Mr. Vernon Thornes was instructed, by the health authority to continue to include it in the tenders? I presume that he will be so instructed and that there will, therefore, be no change.

Mr. Whitney: It would be wrong to go into too much detail about competitive tendering and the fair wages clause now, but the fair wages clause is contrary to the policy of the regional health authority and the Department. We spend £1 billion nationally on catering, cleaning and laundry services, and the objective must be to provide proper levels of service at the proper cost. That is generally accepted. Perhaps only three out of 191 health authorities are having difficulties. The interests of the patients must have priority.
As for the age of a chairman, it would be wrong for me to go into individual cases, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts the general approach of introducing new and younger blood. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the new chairman and I hope that Mr. Baker's stay is profitable and helpful and that it will further promote the development of health care in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty six minutes past One o'clock.